list_attributes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description only adds 'global' scope and examples. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or return format, but the annotation reduces the burden; no contradiction exists.

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 with a clear verb-first structure. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a sibling pointer and parameter tip without any filler.

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, read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool lists, where to find related values, and how to optimize field selection; a return-shape note would be useful but is not essential for this task.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions using the fields param to request only needed fields, which slightly reinforces the schema but does not add substantive new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the action and resource: 'List global product attributes' with concrete examples. It differentiates from the sibling list_attribute_terms by directing users there for attribute values, so there is no confusion about scope.

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?

It explicitly tells users to use list_attribute_terms for values and to use the fields parameter to limit requested fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a straightforward read-only listing this guidance is sufficient.

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