list_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned-field context (names, prices, SKUs, categories) but says nothing about pagination behavior, the cursor/limit mechanics, or the soft-delete default that an agent needs to reason about results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is more of a field inventory than actionable guidance.

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 read-only list tool with a fully-described schema and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource and the fields surfaced. It is only missing a note on pagination and deletion filtering, which the schema partly covers.

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 all four parameters (limit, cursor, items_ids, show_deleted) are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("List items from the catalog") that an agent can distinguish from the singular get_item sibling by the list/get prefix. The second sentence clarifies the fields exposed, but there is no explicit differentiation from list-oriented siblings like list_receipts or list_stores beyond the resource noun.

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?

"Useful to look up item names, prices, SKUs, and categories" implies a usage context but never states when to prefer this over get_item or how it relates to siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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