Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that filters exist, which is already in the schema. No additional behavioral traits such as pagination or default limits are disclosed, so it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and key optional filters, achieving maximum conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, complete parameter schema, and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all parameters (limit, search, status, categoryId) already documented in the schema. The description restates that filtering by name/status/category is possible but adds no new semantic meaning beyond grouping these filters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List shop products with optional filters by name, status, or category,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_product, create_product, and list_product_categories, which focus on single-product retrieval, creation, or category listing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a user needs multiple products with optional filters, distinguishing it from single-product tools. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternative tools, so it doesn't earn a 5. The context is clear enough for a typical listing scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.