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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the conceptual framing and says nothing about result size, pagination, filtering behavior, or what happens when a project/site has no catalog.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but verges on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

Three parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no pagination or result-shape hints. For a list tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented, the description leaves out information an agent needs to call it 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 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions projectId, siteId, or query. An agent cannot tell from either source what query does (search by name? SKU?) or why site/project scope is required.

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 (List) and resource (products) plus the domain relationship (products articles can feature), which separates it from siblings like list_articles and list_prospects. Scope is still slightly ambiguous — it doesn't say whether results are scoped per project/site or catalog-wide.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the article-featuring phrase that this is the lookup used before assigning products to articles.

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