list_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the page token is a version cursor sourced from the previous response's version.max, which tells the agent how iteration actually works. It omits ordering guarantees, whether the cursor expires, and any rate/size limits.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the resource and cursor mechanic come first and the sibling redirect last, in the order an agent needs them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the paging loop is explained. The remaining gap is `page_size` semantics and termination behavior, which matter for a tool whose whole purpose is iterating a collection.

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 both parameters rest entirely on this description. `after` is well explained as the prior response's version.max, but `page_size` (default 100, max unknown) receives no mention at all, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented.

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 the concrete resource (product collection page) and its pagination model (version cursor), which is more specific than a bare 'list products'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_products, so an agent can tell the two apart. The label 'raw' is slightly jargon-y but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Prefer search_products to find items' gives an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is the main routing decision for this tool. It stops short of stating the positive case (full enumeration/export-style traversal) or any exclusions like volume limits, so it is clear but not complete.

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