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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavior: hottest sorts by claimed-owner priority and accumulated views, leaderboard is a precomputed snapshot of the previous natural month, and random prioritizes claimed products. This meaningfully explains how results are produced.

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 tightly structured with a 'when to use' section and a bulleted enum breakdown. Every sentence carries useful information, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: when to call it, what each type means, and how results are ordered. It leaves no major gap for selecting the right type, though it could more explicitly disambiguate from the discover/random feed siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the enum values. The description adds valuable semantic detail for each type value, clarifying the ordering and meaning of hottest vs leaderboard, which goes beyond the simple schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a product-ranking list for specific browse intents (热门/今日新品/随机逛逛/月度榜) and contrasts it with search for unfocused browsing. It does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings like list_products_discover or random_feed, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 opens with an explicit 'when to use' section and states that this tool is better than search for browsing without a clear intent. It gives clear context but does not spell out when not to use it or name specific alternative tools like list_products_discover or random_feed.

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