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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful domain constraint that live products yield no service-only path, but it does not clarify what happens when the filter matches a live product (empty result vs error) or how results are ordered.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the optional filter. The second sentence is a useful caveat, though its phrasing ('Live products have no ... path') is slightly ambiguous about whether it describes a result condition or a validation rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is a plain-language definition of 'engagement path' and clarification of the live-product edge case, which matter for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, but the schema's enum lists all six accepted product IDs, so the value space is visible. The description adds that the value is a 'canonical product ID', which is modest but useful semantic framing beyond the raw enum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list engagement paths, scoped to 'service-only' products, with optional product filtering. It is distinct from siblings like get_product and list_capabilities. However, the core domain terms 'engagement path' and 'service-only' are undefined, so the agent knows the operation's shape but not fully what it retrieves.

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 says the filter is optional and notes that live products have no service-only path, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_product or list_capabilities. An agent has to infer usage from the noun phrase alone.

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