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. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination limit (up to 50 per page), cursor-based pagination mechanics, and a critical constraint that cursor cannot be combined with filters. It also specifies ISO-8601 UTC format for date parameters. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or rate limits.

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 succinct yet packed with necessary details. It front-loads the primary purpose, then uses structured bullet-like formatting for filters and pagination. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 optional params, pagination, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main use case, all filter options with formats, pagination behavior, and the cursor constraint. No critical operational guidance is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: modified_after/modified_before with format and example, type with allowed values (PHYSICAL | SERVICE | GIFT_CARD | DIGITAL), query as free-text search, and cursor usage with a caveat. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 begins with 'List store products', a specific verb+resource construction that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_product (singular retrieval) and other list_* tools by focusing on products. Mentioning 'Products v2' adds version context.

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 phrase 'Use to browse the catalog' provides a clear general context. The description gives concrete usage guidance for filters and pagination, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'for a single product, use get_product') or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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