beaconed_products_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only restates the HTTP method and the listing action, without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether any authorization is needed, or what response behavior (e.g., pagination defaults) looks like. It adds no behavioral depth beyond the schema's parameter list.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the endpoint and the core action, then lists the filter categories. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 list endpoint with eight optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description gives enough orientation for an agent to choose the tool and call it. It does not, however, describe the response format (there is no output schema) or explicitly note read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or the fact that all parameters are optional, which leaves a few gaps for a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description only needs to add brief meaning. It summarizes the filter dimensions (status, score, grade, search query) which maps to parameters like status, min_score/max_score, grade, and q, but it omits page, per_page, and needs_optimization. This adds a minor overview but doesn't go beyond what the schema already states.

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 a GET request to /api/v1/products and the action 'list products' with optional filters. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like beaconed_products_get (singular fetch) and beaconed_products_create/update, so an agent can tell which tool fits a listing task.

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 gives a clear context for listing products, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as beaconed_products_get for a single product or beaconed_scores_list for score-specific views. Usage is implied by the name and verb rather than stated with exclusions.

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