Browse DSers My Products

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the API's minimum page size constraint ('DSers API returns a minimum of 20 items per page'), explains client-side truncation behavior ('If page_size < 20, results are truncated client-side'), and details the return format with specific field descriptions. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description enriches understanding of operational behavior without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences: it opens with the core purpose, specifies required parameters, details the return format, provides sibling differentiation, and concludes with important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds essential information, making it both comprehensive and concise.

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 (list operation with pagination), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, return format, sibling differentiation, and critical behavioral constraints (minimum page size, truncation). While there's no output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return structure.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (store_id, page, page_size) with their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing the store_id requirement and mentioning page_size behavior, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Browse products already pushed to a store'), identifies the resource ('products'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling dsers_import_list ('To see products waiting to be pushed, use dsers_import_list'). This provides precise differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Browse products already pushed to a store') versus when to use an alternative ('To see products waiting to be pushed, use dsers_import_list'). It also specifies a prerequisite requirement ('Requires store_id (from dsers_store_discover)'), giving clear context for proper usage.

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