List products

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the 'newest first' ordering and pagination behavior (has_more, next_page). It stops short of noting auth requirements or how an omitted status filter behaves.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact Args block and a Returns block with no filler. The Returns enumeration is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, but it is short and does not bloat the definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered, and the description adds the small amount of context an agent needs (ordering, defaults, filters) to invoke it correctly. It lacks only auth/permission notes and filter-combination semantics, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it documents status enum values, page default, and the limit range (1–100, default 20). The one param it omits, response_format, is the sole param already documented in the schema, so combined coverage is effectively complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope and ordering: 'List the organization's products, newest first.' It is clearly distinguishable from jami_get_product and jami_create_product by the list/get/create verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the status filter, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus jami_get_product or jami_list_orders, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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