Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'product' in this context. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes core functionality, and the two bullet points efficiently document the most complex parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by documenting two parameters but leaves three undocumented. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a list operation with filtering and pagination, more behavioral context would be helpful. It's minimally adequate but has clear 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'type' parameter's allowed values (ONE_OFF, RECURRING, METERED) and clarifying that 'active' filters by status. However, it doesn't mention 'page', 'limit', or 'currency' parameters at all, leaving three parameters completely undocumented.

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 resource ('products') with the core functionality of optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_product' (singular retrieval) and 'create_product' (creation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_coupons' or 'list_customers' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_product' for single product retrieval or 'create_product' for creation, nor does it specify prerequisites, access requirements, or contextual triggers for choosing this list operation.

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