List Products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior context: pagination is by page index only, there is no server-side filter, and it specifies the response shape. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for output.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, then pagination behavior, then parameter summaries, then return details. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to overlapping with the schema, but every sentence serves a purpose, so it remains efficient.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return object and item contents. It also covers pagination mechanics, filtering limitations, and the alternative tool, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly. The context provided is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description's arg list largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, adding little beyond stating that page is 1-based and page_size has a max of 200. It does not introduce new semantic meaning for parameters that the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'List products (SKUs) in the Logiwa catalog, paginated', using a specific verb (List) and resource (products/SKUs), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting pagination and the absence of server-side filters. It also references logiwa_get_product for known identifiers, differentiating its scope from a single-product lookup.

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 states when to use this tool ('page through results to find a SKU') and when to use an alternative ('or use logiwa_get_product when you already know the product identifier'). It also explains the pagination-only behavior, giving clear guidance on how to retrieve products in the absence of search/filter capabilities.

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