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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds the ordering rule (best sellers first), the pagination behavior (`next` gives more), and that the response also reports the store's copy rules — real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the resource and criteria in one dense sentence, then adds the precondition. No wasted filler, though the Kooga-specific phrasing is slightly opaque and could be tightened.

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, and the description still notes the extra rules payload. Precondition and pagination are both covered, leaving only minor gaps like whether zero results is normal.

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 covers cursor and workspaceId at 67% coverage; the description clarifies the linkage between the returned `next` value and the cursor parameter, which the schema alone only partly conveys. The `limit` cap semantics are left to the schema, but the description compensates for the main ambiguity.

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?

Names the specific resource (weak product listings) and enumerates the exact defect criteria — missing meta tags, short description, images without alt text, over-limit title, unpublished Kooga copy. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like readProducts (all products) and updateListing (mutation).

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?

Explicitly states the precondition 'Only for a workspace with a store connected' and routes the agent to listWorkspaces to verify. It implies but does not explicitly say to prefer readProducts when all products are wanted, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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