get_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, explains pagination semantics (zero-based page, size with a cap note), and lists the exact fields returned. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but these are typically environment-level and not required for a read operation. The description goes beyond a bare statement of purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only note, then uses a compact bullet-like format for parameters and return fields. Every sentence provides necessary operational detail with no padding.

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 endpoint with four optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers all runtime considerations: parameter behavior, pagination, filtering, and return shape. It even flags a known sibling cap difference. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. Each parameter is explicitly explained: page (zero-based), size (with sibling cap callout), approved (true/false/omit semantics), and barcode (exact match). This adds far more meaning than the schema's type/default definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool lists products in the seller's Trendyol store and marks it as read-only. This is a specific verb-object-resource pairing that clearly differentiates from siblings like get_orders or get_claims, which operate on different data types.

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 gives clear context (listing products, read-only) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool names, so an agent has to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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