ecommerce_listProductsV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details. It mentions ordering ('newest first'), response field structure ('lean summaries...'), and data types ('prices are integers in smallest currency unit'). It does not describe pagination, error handling, or response envelope, which are common gaps for list operations.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the core action and key options. It avoids redundancy, states the ordering and response fields succinctly, and clearly separates the main listing from optional inclusions.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the response content ('lean summaries' with specific fields) and optional embeddable data. It does not mention pagination or API-specific details, but for a list operation, this coverage is reasonably complete given the context.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds some context (e.g., explains the purpose of filters and includes), but mostly repeats the schema's information. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance the understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing a store's products, sorted newest first, with a specific set of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecommerce_listOrdersV1 or ecommerce_listDiscountsV1 by focusing on products and their filtering/embedding options.

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 indicates usage scenarios through its filter and include parameters (e.g., 'Filter by status, free text or a set of product ids' and 'Use include=variants...'), which implicitly tell when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with other listing tools, but the clarity of its purpose compensates.

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