beaconed_products_optimizations

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 the HTTP method and endpoint pattern, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, response shape, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of return-format or pagination details is a gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and scope. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a brief note about filters without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the primary filter (product_id) and omits the optional filters (field, status, page, per_page) and pagination behavior. An agent would need to open the schema to understand the full capability, and would still lack response-shape information.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the product_id context but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('optimizations'), and a clear scope ('for a specific product'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling beaconed_optimizations_list by the product_id filter, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies usage: call this when you need optimizations for a specific product. It doesn't explicitly state when to use beaconed_optimizations_list instead, but the product_id requirement in the description and schema makes the context reasonably clear.

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