Custom Objects List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material value beyond that: it flags the unstable API version, states the required read_products/write_products scope (an auth requirement agents must satisfy), and discloses the response envelope including pagination fields. It only misses rate-limit or caveat details specific to the unstable surface.

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 four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by endpoint, scope, version and return shape. Every line carries distinct information with no 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 usefully spells out the return envelope (count, page, per_page, total, has_more, next_page, items). Combined with the scope and API-version notes, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only pagination edge cases and sibling routing are left implicit.

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, fields and response_format are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond echoing page/per_page as response keys, which is not the same as input guidance.

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 custom object definitions'. The word 'definitions' meaningfully separates it from the sibling entry-level tools such as tiendanube_custom_object_entries_list, which lists entries rather than schemas. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and endpoint; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus listing entries or fetching a single object with tiendanube_custom_objects_get. The 'unstable API' note gives useful context about reliability but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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