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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower burden. However, it adds zero behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of result limits, filtering semantics, or whether categories are exact matches. It is consistent with annotations but not additive.

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 extremely short, which avoids redundancy, but it is under-specified. A noun phrase like 'Products by category.' does not provide enough actionable detail for a tool with three parameters and pagination semantics. This is not concise effectiveness; it is minimalistic to the point of being unhelpful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks essential usage context. It does not clarify whether this returns a list, supports pagination, or how it differs from product/brand queries. The tool is simple, but the description is too thin for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 must compensate, but it only mentions 'category' implicitly. It does not explain the role of 'page' or 'page_size' (though their names are self-explanatory) nor the required vs optional relationship. The example in the schema provides some context, but the description itself adds minimal parameter meaning.

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 'Products by category' clearly identifies the resource (products) and the filtering dimension (category), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'product' or 'brand' even without an explicit verb. It is slightly less direct than a verb-led description, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'product', 'brand', or 'search'. The description does not state prerequisites, category matching behavior, or pagination expectations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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