Custom Object Entries List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the marginal value here is the 'unstable API' warning, the required scope, and the explicit response envelope. That unstable-version caveat is behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four compact labeled lines — purpose, HTTP route, scope, return shape. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description steps in with the return shape {count, page, per_page, total?, has_more, next_page?, items[]}, plus scope and stability. What's missing is any note on pagination behavior or the fields projection, though the schema covers those.

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 page, per_page, slug, namespace, fields and response_format are already documented. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('List entries of a custom object') and nails the endpoint. Against sibling tools like tiendanube_custom_object_entries_get/create/delete, the list semantics are unambiguous from the first three words.

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 supplies a prerequisite (required scope read_products/write_products) which genuinely helps routing, but it never says when to use this versus entries_get for a single entry or custom_objects_list for the parent definitions. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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