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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond annotations: it requires login and it includes links across all statuses (pending claim / published / delisted). That's useful but no return format, pagination, or rate-limiting info is given.

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?

One compact sentence pairs the login requirement with the list scope and the pre-modification workflow hint. Nothing is wasted, though the phrase '本人全部状态产品及全部链接' is a little dense.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: login requirement, that it returns all statuses and links, and that it should be called before modifying to get productId. It could name the modifying siblings it feeds into, but that's a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline is 4. It doesn't need to explain parameter meaning, and it isn't confusing any.

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 says it lists the user's own products across all statuses plus links, which is a clear verb+resource. But it's terse and does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling listers like list_products, list_products_discover, or list_service_products; differentiation is only implied by the 'my' scope.

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?

Usage is only implied (get your own products, and fetch productId before modifying). There is no explicit 'when to use this instead of list_products / list_products_discover', and no stated exclusions.

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