list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions generic features that are already evident from the parameter names (pagination, search, filters). It does not disclose default sort order, page size limits, filter pass-through behavior, or confirm that the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the core action and key features without wasting words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, nested object) and no output schema, the description is minimal but workable. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description does not mention that all filters are optional, describe the paginated response structure, or clarify how the nested 'filters' object behaves. The schema's richness partially compensates, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions (e.g., 'Comma-separated SKUs to filter by', 'Page number, 1-based'). Since schema coverage is high, the description adds no parameter-level detail, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('products'), and highlights three distinct capabilities: pagination, search, and filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (singular list) and list_categories (different resource).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving multiple products with optional filtering and pagination, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool list includes get_product for single-item lookups, making the usage context unambiguous. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, so it isn't a 5.

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