lufa_get_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds value by stating 'Requires an active session' and defining the temporal scope (current order week), plus listing the returned fields. It doesn't mention error handling or read-only semantics, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact list of return fields and a necessary prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool, the description is sufficient: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a usage prerequisite. It lacks details like error responses or pagination, but these are not necessary given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output 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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related info because none is needed. It focuses on the output and preconditions, which 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 'Retrieve the full product catalog for the current order week', identifying a specific verb (retrieve), resource (product catalog), and scope (full, current order week). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lufa_search_products and lufa_get_product_details.

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 phrase 'full product catalog' and 'current order week' provides clear context that this is the bulk-fetch tool, implicitly indicating to use search_products for filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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.