List Micro products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds only the vague 'stable' qualifier and no additional behavioral context such as response format or path effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise with no redundant filler. It leaves 'stable' undefined, but this is a minor completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 simple read-only list tool with a documented schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain what 'stable product resources' means, how the optional path relates to the linked project, or when to prefer this over micro_products_sync. These are notable but non-critical gaps.

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?

The single optional path parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including its default behavior. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the specific verb 'List', the resource ('product resources'), and the scope ('for the linked project'). It is clear at a basic level, though the qualifier 'stable' is somewhat opaque. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling micro_products_sync, but the title reinforces the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as micro_products_sync or micro_records. The phrase 'linked project' implies context, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool pointers are provided. Given the large sibling set, this is a meaningful gap.

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