List Harpd AI products (paginated)

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial extra behavioral context: rankPoints are promotional placement bought with Credits, not an editorial quality score, sorting by rankPoints is a non-merit ordering, page size is capped at 200, and every record carries full provenance. This meaningfully exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, usage routing, the critical rankPoints caveat, pagination cap, and provenance note. The most decision-relevant information (what it is and when to use it) is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: scope, filters, pagination behavior, sorting semantics, and the distinction from search_products. The provenance note partially compensates for the absent output schema by setting expectations about record completeness.

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 value by warning that sorting by 'rankPoints' orders by promotional placement rather than merit, which directly enriches the most subtle parameter. It also summarizes the filter dimensions (category, verification, product type, rankPoints range), but the schema already covers those clearly.

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 names a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('full Harpd open product catalog'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_products as the enumeration/bulk-export path. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this to enumerate or bulk-export products') and explicitly routes users away from it for free-text lookup ('use search_products for free-text lookup'). This provides clear selection guidance against the main alternative.

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