List articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no default or maximum page size, no note on whether results include inactive articles, and no indication of result volume or ordering. For a paginated catalogue listing this is a real gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key domain clarification front-loaded, no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and pagination implied by page/size, the description should explain filtering options and paging expectations. It covers only the resource identity, leaving an agent to open the schema and guess at return shape and limits.

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 only 40%: page and size carry descriptions, while gtin, articleNumber, and type are undocumented. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap and leaves three filters unexplained in both structured and prose form.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('products and services from the article catalogue'), and usefully disambiguates that 'articles' here means products and services, which an agent could not infer from the tool name alone. It does not name or differentiate from the obvious sibling get_article for single-record retrieval, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Listing semantics imply when to use it (browse/enumerate the catalogue rather than fetch one record), but the description never states that explicitly and offers no exclusions or alternatives such as get_article. Usage is inferable only from the verb.

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