Get Products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. The description adds context about the purpose and that it returns pricing data, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result sizes, or the exact response shape. This is adequate given the read-only annotation, but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words or repetition. The use cases are appended succinctly. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, pagination support, and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and use cases, but it does not mention that results are paginated, whether all products are returned when no filters are provided, or the structure of the response. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap, though the read-only nature and good schema coverage keep it acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples, formatting rules, or relationships between parameters. 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 action ('List products in the Hyros catalog') and identifies the resource and specific returned fields (price, cost of goods, category). This distinguishes it from sibling getters such as get_sales or get_leads, and from product mutation tools like create_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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this before creating a product to avoid duplicates, or to audit the pricing that feeds profit and ROAS reporting.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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