Query the product catalog

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses pagination exhaustion behavior, the opaque cursor mechanics, and the structure of products and custom_attributes. It also notes that markCountUnitList is open-ended and that the server-side maximum for limit is undocumented, providing valuable operational context.

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 dense but highly efficient. Every sentence earns its place: it states the feed type, API endpoint, pagination rule, and enumerates the full product structure. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical usage detail.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return shape, custom_attributes details, and how to iterate for a full snapshot. It covers pagination behavior, field semantics, and open-ended values, making it complete for a developer to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and pagination behavior. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('query') and resource ('product catalog / product-updates feed'), and includes the exact API endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like query_price_lists by focusing on product data and cursor-based pagination.

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 provides clear usage context: use this cursor-based feed to build a full snapshot by iterating until a page returns fewer items than the limit. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when creating products), leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools.

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