get_store_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only ('List') and returns paginated results, which is good. However, it does not disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the pagination is cursor-based or page-based beyond the 'page' parameter. The description adds value but misses some behavioral details.

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 main action and resource, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second summarizes the return fields. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the input (domain), output structure (titles, prices, images, vendors), and pagination hint. However, it doesn't mention that the response might include total count or next page links, which would be helpful for pagination-aware agents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'paginated list' which aligns with the page/per_page params, but doesn't explain the sort format or what 'added_at' means. Given high coverage, baseline 3 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'products sold by a specific e-commerce store', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_products' (which likely searches across stores) and 'get_product' (which gets a single product). It also mentions the return fields, making the purpose very specific.

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 when you need to list products for a given store domain, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'search_products' might be better for cross-store queries, or that 'get_product' is for a single product. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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