beel_list_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains pagination ('paginated list', 'pagination envelope'), the semantics of the q parameter (matches name, code, description), and the privacy behavior of company_id (403 for non-existent NIF, no disclosure). This is exactly the kind of context annotations do not provide.

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 efficiently written with three sentences (plus endpoint). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds search behavior and endpoint. There is no redundant repetition of schema details. It could arguably omit the withdrawn search mention, but that adds useful historical context. Overall, it earns its place.

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 complexity (12 parameters, enums, pagination), the description covers the core: purpose, search behavior, company_id context derivation, and endpoint. It does not specify the exact response structure, but since there is no output schema and it's a simple paginated list, that may be acceptable. The mention of the withdrawn search endpoint further enriches context. Slightly more could be said about filter behaviors (e.g., how filters combine), but schema covers that.

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%, and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics—it slightly enhances q by noting 'no separate search path' and clarifies pagination envelope, but these are already implied by the schema (q description says 'Search by name, code or description'). The schema itself is thorough, so the description does not need to compensate. 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 clearly states the operation: 'Returns a paginated list of the products/services of this company (NIF), with optional filters.' It specifies the resource (products/services) and scope (company NIF), and provides the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., beel_list_customers, beel_list_invoices), though the resource is unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs usage for search: 'Searching is `?q=` on this collection: there is no separate search path.' This prevents an agent from seeking a separate search tool. It also clarifies the behavior of company_id (deriving context and 403 semantics), which is essential for correct usage. It does not enumerate alternative tools but provides clear situational guidance.

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