get_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral weight. 'Returns' and 'Supabase embedded select' imply a read-only query, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, empty-result behavior, or response structure.

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 two purposeful sentences with the main behavior front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful implementation context without unnecessary detail.

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 core call is clear for a simple read operation with fully described parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely specifies the return shape without field names, ordering, or pagination semantics.

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 tenant_id, limit, and category_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds tenant and variant-pricing context, but no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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?

States a clear action and resource: 'Returns catalogue items with variant pricing for a tenant.' This differentiates it from siblings like get_orders and add_item by focusing on products and catalogue data.

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?

Usage is implied through the resource type, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over list_tenants, get_orders, or add_item. It also provides no exclusion criteria or alternative routing guidance.

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