list_favorites

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that pagination is automatic, that `limit` caps results, and that there is no page parameter to request. It also enumerates the returned fields. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but listing favorites is inherently read-only and safe. This is solid disclosure beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are listed compactly, and the pagination behavior is explained efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (even though not shown) and the description's inclusion of return fields and pagination, it is largely complete. It does not cover error cases or ordering, but those are minor for a basic list operation. It could benefit from stating it returns the current user's favorites, but that is strongly implied by the name and sibling context.

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 schema already fully documents the `limit` parameter (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that pagination is handled automatically and there is no separate page parameter. This extra information helps the agent understand the single parameter's role beyond the schema's basic description.

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 states the exact purpose: listing favorites as product tiles, with the specific fields (sku, title, price, old price, url). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lists (which handles user lists) and set_favorite (which toggles favorites). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 implies usage (to view a user's favorite products) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_lists or set_favorite. It provides clear context on the return type, which helps an agent infer when to call it, but it stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a specific sibling.

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