list_products

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

With no annotations, the description needs to carry the behavioral burden. It discloses pagination via token and implies read-only via GET, but it does not describe response shape, error behavior, or side effects (or lack thereof) beyond the implied GET.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: endpoint, page semantics, and pagination instruction are front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

With 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation beyond a plain unparameterized call. An agent cannot learn what the filters mean or what the response page looks like from this definition alone.

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 compensate. It only explains token ('use token from the previous response to get the next page') and refers vaguely to 'documented filters' without enumerating status, shop_id, qc_status, seller_sku, category_code, or size semantics.

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 names a specific endpoint ('GET /catalog/products') and states the operation returns one page of products with filters, which distinguishes it from product-mutation siblings like create_products/update_products. However, 'documented filters' is vague and it does not explicitly contrast with list_shops/list_brands or other read tools.

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?

It provides clear context for use: get a page of products and pass the returned token for the next page. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_products over find_duplicate_products or list_orders, but the read/list purpose is clear from the endpoint phrasing.

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