List products

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the default obsolete-filtering behavior and the fields each record carries, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences that front-load what the resource is before the filtering default. The trailing 'Uses GET /products/' is largely redundant with the tool name and adds little, but the rest 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?

For an eight-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the default filtering, and the schema fully documents pagination and filters. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on paging behavior or error cases.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults for page, max_results, and include_obsolete. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (list) and resource (products) and enumerates the concrete item kinds returned (casks, kegs, smallpack, multi-packs, stock items, services) plus the fields (code, type, price, drinks). This clearly separates it from get_product, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 note that obsolete products are excluded 'unless asked for' implies how to shape a call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives like get_product for a single item. Usage must be inferred from the plural name.

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