list_products

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it lists products, implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authorization requirements. It lacks transparency for a tool with three parameters and default values.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness—for example, noting defaults or filtering options.

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 three parameters are fully described in the schema and no output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic resource but lacks details on return format, pagination defaults, or filtering behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like visibility or pagination interact. The description's 'including plans and experiences' adds context but not parameter details.

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 uses 'List products' as verb+resource, and specifies scope as 'in your Whop company catalog, including plans and experiences.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (single product) and list_plans (only plans), but does not explicitly differentiate from other listing tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_plans or search tools. The agent is left to infer context from the name and description alone.

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