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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing pagination structure (count/next/previous/results) and bulk execution support. No contradictions with 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 concise, with the primary action and pagination behavior front-loaded, followed by a compact filter list and a clear bulk-support note. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: pagination shape, optional filters, and bulk behavior. It is slightly incomplete because the account parameter is not mentioned in the prose and response object fields are not described, but the core calling context is covered.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It enumerates most filters by name and clarifies the important semantics of product_id, including comma-separated values and its use for reading one product. However, the 'account' parameter is omitted from the description, and some filters like ordering/status are only named without deeper explanation.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista produtos da conta na Cakto', clearly identifying this as a read operation on products. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cakto_products_create and cakto_products_update by indicating this is the listing endpoint.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing products, including reading a specific product via product_id or performing bulk reads via product_ids. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools for create/update operations, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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