get_product_totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the grouping behavior by status and the quick-overview intent, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or response format. With the lower bar due to annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action and status groupings, with no wasted words. The second sentence efficiently adds the use-case context.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It conveys the essential purpose, grouping dimensions, and the quick-overview use case. The parameter details are covered by the schema.

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% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, with a description providing default and format. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter context, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get product counts grouped by status', and enumerates the statuses (publish, draft, pending, private). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product and list_products, and aligns with the pattern of other totals tools (get_order_totals, get_customer_totals).

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?

Usage context is implied via 'Quick catalog size overview', suggesting it's for summaries rather than detailed product listings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it doesn't reach the level of explicit guidelines.

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