List products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds the optional narrowing behavior but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether inactive products are included by default. The per_page field hints at pagination, but the description itself doesn't say how pages behave.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by concise optional qualifiers. Every word earns its place; no restating of the title or redundant detail.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering half the parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, default listing scope (active only or all), or how query and currency interact. An agent could call it correctly, but might not know whether to expect all products or only active ones by default.

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 50%, so the schema already documents page, per_page, and administration_id. The description adds only that query and currency are free-text/currency narrowing options, which is modest value beyond the schema parameter names. It doesn't clarify the format of currency (e.g., ISO 4217) or what query matches against, so it doesn't fully compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the product catalogue') and explicitly names the two optional narrowing dimensions (free-text query, currency). 'List products' alone would have been tautological, but the full sentence adds real operational scope and distinguishes it from sibling get_product (which retrieves a single product).

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('List the product catalogue, optionally narrowed by free-text query or currency'). It implies this is the collection-level counterpart to get_product, though it does not explicitly name get_product or state when not to use it. Sibling context makes the collection vs. single-item distinction clear enough.

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