Browse products in a specific category by ID. Returns paginated list with images, prices, and suppliers. Use after listCategories to explore a category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based, default 1) | |
| limit | No | Products per page (1-50, default 20) | |
| categoryId | Yes | Category ID (get from listCategories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses paginated behavior and response fields (images, prices, suppliers). However, it does not detail pagination limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and return content; the second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return contents (pagination, images, prices, suppliers). It covers usage sequence and parameter details via the schema. Missing error handling or performance notes, but sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description only reinforces the categoryId hint but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 specifies the action (browse/list), resource (products), and context (by category ID). It also mentions the response content (images, prices, suppliers), and the phrase 'Use after listCategories' distinguishes it from sibling tools like searchProducts and getProduct.
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 explicitly states 'Use after listCategories to explore a category,' providing clear sequential guidance. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context makes it appropriate for category browsing after category selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: getting a product, getting a supplier, listing categories, listing products in a category, and searching. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (getProduct, getSupplier, listCategories, listProducts, searchProducts).
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only B2B catalog, covering browsing, searching, and detailed views without excess.
The tool set covers the full user journey: browse categories, list products, search, get product details, and get supplier details. No obvious gaps for the intended read-only use.
