products_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (implied by 'Read'), describes pagination behavior with the 'after' cursor, and mentions response structure ('paging.next.after'). However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent.

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 appropriately sized at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains key parameters and response behavior. There's no wasted text, though the second sentence is somewhat dense and could be structured more clearly.

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 paginated list tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the pagination mechanism and field selection, but lacks information about response format beyond the cursor, error handling, sorting, default behaviors, or relationship to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description compensates well. It explains that 'properties' controls what is returned (field selection), and 'after' is a paging cursor token that appears in the response. It doesn't explain 'limit' (though its meaning is somewhat obvious), but provides meaningful context for 2 of 3 parameters beyond basic schema types.

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 purpose as 'Read a page of products' with the verb 'Read' and resource 'products', and specifies it returns a page rather than all products. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_read' (singular) or 'products_search' (filtered search), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'products_search' or 'products_read'. It mentions controlling what is returned via the 'properties' parameter, but this is a feature explanation rather than usage context. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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