Get Products

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that full HTML descriptions are excluded unless include_description=True, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about pagination limits, default page size, auth/permissions, or result truncation.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The return-data summary leads, then search/filter/flag mechanics follow. Efficient, though slightly clipped.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation isn't required. The description covers the meaningful parameters and the description-inclusion tradeoff, leaving only the limit parameter and its pagination behavior unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains search, category_id, and include_description semantics well, but the 'limit' parameter (default 50) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('products'), plus what data comes back (stock, prices, SEO). It's distinguishable from the singular 'get_product' sibling by implication, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Gives implied usage ('Search by name', 'filter by category_id') but never states when to use this vs get_product, get_stock_report, or get_product_attributes. The agent must infer routing across a crowded product-tool sibling set.

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