products_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied safe), supports pagination with cursor tokens, and allows property selection. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds useful context but misses important behavioral details for a tool with no annotations.

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 that efficiently convey core functionality. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second explains key parameters. No wasted words, though the second sentence is somewhat long and could be structured more clearly. Overall appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 is minimally adequate. It covers the pagination mechanism and property selection but doesn't explain response format, error handling, or the limit parameter. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, it should do more to be truly complete.

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 for 3 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of 'properties' (controls what is returned) and 'after' (paging cursor token). It doesn't mention 'limit' parameter at all, which is a gap. However, for 2 out of 3 parameters, it adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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' with specific functionality for controlling returned data via properties and pagination via after cursor. It distinguishes from sibling tools like products_read (singular) and products_search (filtered search), though not explicitly named. The verb+resource is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 for paginated reading with property selection, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like products_search or products_read. It mentions the paging mechanism but doesn't provide clear guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative naming.

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