siigo_get_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get list' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the list returns. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 list retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information the product list contains, how results are structured, whether there are filtering options beyond pagination, or any error conditions. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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%, with both parameters (page and page_size) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get list') and resource ('products from Siigo'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'siigo_get_product' (singular), which presumably retrieves a single product rather than a list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for retrieving different resources (e.g., siigo_get_customers, siigo_get_invoices), but no indication of when this specific product listing tool is appropriate versus other get operations.

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