products_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination behavior (cursor-based via 'after' parameter), response structure (paging.next.after property), and that it's a read operation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a safe operation (though 'Read' implies non-destructive).

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey core functionality and key behavioral details. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains parameter usage and response structure. No wasted words, though the second sentence is somewhat complex and could be split for clarity.

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 read/list tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics: purpose, pagination behavior, and parameter context for 2 of 3 parameters. However, it lacks details about the 'limit' parameter, error handling, authentication needs, and what a 'product' represents in this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It provides meaningful context for two parameters: 'properties' (controls what is returned) and 'after' (paging cursor token). It doesn't explain 'limit' at all, but does clarify the relationship between 'after' and the response structure, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Read a page of products' specifies both the verb (read) and resource (products). It distinguishes this from other product tools like products_create or products_update by focusing on reading/listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from products_search or products_read among siblings.

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 context through mentioning paging and property selection, suggesting this is for paginated listing with optional field selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus products_search (which appears in siblings) or products_read, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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