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

Annotations already indicate read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds a key behavioral criterion—only products with at least one well-sourced claim are returned—which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or pagination, but these are less critical for a parameterless list tool.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the returned items, and the second provides usage guidance. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary fluff.

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 parameters, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what is returned (products with well-sourced claims), how to use it (first to get product_slug), and references the role it plays among sibling tools. This is complete for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description mentions product_slug, but that is an output field for other tools, not a parameter of this tool. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 the tool lists products with at least one well-sourced claim, and the title 'List tracked products' reinforces the action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_claims and get_product by focusing on product enumeration rather than claim retrieval or individual product lookup.

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 says 'Use this first to find the right product_slug for the other tools,' which is direct guidance on when to use this tool and why it is a prerequisite for sibling tools. This makes the usage context obvious and provides clear operational advice.

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