List my products

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the scope that the list is user-saved products, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what fields come back, which limits its added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so minimal that it barely earns more than the verb+object it contains.

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 trivial parameterless read tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps: it does not say whether results are paginated, what shape they take, or whether an empty list is possible. A little more would make it fully callable without surprises.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the empty schema is fully consistent with a parameterless list operation. The description adds nothing further, but there is nothing further to add.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (products you have saved), which distinguishes it from the write-side siblings add_product and remove_product. It does not explicitly name any sibling or scope boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., how this relates to add_product/remove_product or whether a search tool exists for products). The phrase 'you have saved' only implies the saved-items context.

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