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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists products with optional filters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no filters provided. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of 13 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could include more useful information (like the account parameter) without becoming verbose.

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 simple list operation with safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and optional filters. However, it fails to mention the 'account' parameter and provides no hints about the return structure or pagination behavior. This leaves the description slightly incomplete.

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%, meaning the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. The description mentions page_size and page as optional filters but does not explain their semantics (e.g., default values, range). Moreover, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, leaving it undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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 it lists creator products on Kiwify with optional filters. While it identifies the resource (produtos, products) and action (Lista, list), it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kiwify_affiliates or kiwify_sales_list, but the resource type is distinct enough.

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 only mentions that page_size and page are optional filters. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kiwify_sales_list for sales), no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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