list_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns matching product slugs and supports case-insensitive substring filtering. However, it does not disclose potential limits like pagination, or the behavior when no query is provided (e.g., returns all). This is adequate but lacks full transparency.

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 sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then provides usage detail and what is returned. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it does, how to use the parameter, and the return value. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a list/search tool of 480+ items, this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the query parameter. The description adds valued context by explaining the parameter's purpose (finding canonical slug for sibling tools) and providing a concrete example, going beyond the schema's 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?

The description explicitly states the tool lists or searches products from endoflife.ai (480+), and distinguishes from siblings by explaining it retrieves canonical slugs for use with other tools. The example 'postgres' → 'postgresql' clarifies the resource and action.

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 description clearly suggests using this tool 'before calling the other tools' to find the canonical slug, providing a specific use case. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is well understood.

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