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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'Members only' (an auth requirement) and the archived-visibility behavior tied to includeArchived.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the field inventory. The long enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though the sentence is dense enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing name, price, pricing mode, status, archived, kind, quantity semantics (-1 = unlimited), stock fields, hasVariants, and variant fields. Auth, scoping (one rikma via projectId from findUserProjectsTool), and sequencing are all covered; ordering/pagination is the only notable omission.

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%, so all four parameters (kindOf, search, projectId, includeArchived) are already documented with filters, casing behavior, and defaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the products of one rikma for the merchant) and enumerates the exact fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the public catalog ('not the public catalog'), which separates it from siblings like searchCatalogTool and getRikmaProductTool.

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?

Gives a clear call-order rule: 'Call it first to see what you have on the shelf before creating, editing stock or checking orders,' which routes the agent to this tool ahead of create/update/stock operations. It does not name the narrower siblings (getRikmaProductTool, listRikmaProductVariantsTool) as alternatives for single-product or variant lookups.

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