urdb_list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and sorting capabilities but lacks details on critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by 'per_page' but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error cases). This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage examples without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, and output format, which are crucial for effective tool invocation. The examples help but don't compensate for these gaps.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by 'category, brand, or score range' and providing usage examples, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'List products filtered by category, brand, or score range,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'urdb_search' or 'urdb_get_product,' which likely have overlapping or related functionality.

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 usage context with examples like 'best integrity laptops' or 'washing machines above 70,' which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose 'urdb_search' instead.

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