list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that authentication is required and implies a read-only operation ("List"). It also mentions the prerequisite of obtaining the listId from get_hero_collections. However, it does not discuss rate limits or error handling, which are minor for a read operation. The added context goes beyond a generic 'list' description, so a 4 is well-deserved.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then supplemented by pagination/filtering and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or verbosity.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: how to identify the collection, what features are supported, and authentication needs. It could explicitly state the return shape (e.g., array of products), but given that it is a list operation and the schema covers pagination parameters, the description is adequately complete. The missing return format is a minor gap.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults and ranges (100% coverage). The description adds the important provenance that listId comes from get_hero_collections, which is also in the schema but reinforces the relationship. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is justified.

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 the tool lists products from a specific collection using a listId, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products by referencing collection-based browsing and explicitly ties the listId to get_hero_collections.

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 context: use this when you have a listId from get_hero_collections, and it supports pagination and in-stock filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_products, but the reference to collection-specific listing implies when to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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