teamleader_products_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional search-term filtering but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page sizes, return format, or any potential side effects. For a list operation this is a moderate gap, as the schema exposes page and page_size parameters without behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence of six words. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 is a simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential purpose but omits pagination behavior and return-value expectations. Given the presence of structured schema fields, the description is minimally viable but could be richer to fully orient an agent, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that search-term filtering is optional, aligning with the schema's zero required parameters. However, it does not explain the 'page' parameter and only partially reinforces 'page_size'. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description compensates slightly but not fully.

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 the tool's core function with a specific verb and resource: 'List products, optionally filtered by search term.' It clearly distinguishes from related sibling tools like teamleader_products_info (which retrieves a single product) and teamleader_product_categories_list (which lists categories, not products).

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 for retrieving multiple products based on the verb 'List,' but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_products_info or teamleader_product_categories_list. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only the inherent implication from the tool name and phrasing.

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