Metafields List By Resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: the HTTP route, the per-resource scope requirement (products/content/orders/customers), the API version, and the exact pagination envelope. That is real operational context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by terse structured lines for HTTP route, scope, version, and return shape. No filler, though the scope line is dense enough to require a second read.

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 a 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope shape and the permission model, which are the two things an agent most needs. Only the relationship to the singular get tool is 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 the schema already documents every parameter including enum values and pagination limits. The description restates the filter set (owner/namespace/key/value) without adding syntax or format detail, 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List metafields of a resource type', and names the filterable dimensions. The singular sibling tiendanube_metafields_get is distinguishable by name, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 implied (bulk/listing with optional owner/namespace/key/value filters) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or steering away from tiendanube_metafields_get for single-record lookups. The scope requirement hints at which resources are accessible, but not when to pick this tool.

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