list_products

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly explains the pagination flow using since_id, has_more, and next_since_id, which is essential for a list endpoint. This goes beyond the schema by telling the agent to call again when has_more=true. It does not mention rate limits or response structure, but the pagination instruction is substantial behavioral context.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and filters, the second explains pagination. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately actionable.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core roadmap: filters and pagination. It is not exhaustive (no default limit, no mention of sorting or response shape), but the pagination instruction is a critical missing piece that would otherwise be unclear. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination loop involving since_id and next_since_id, which is not fully captured in the schema. It also names the key filters (status, vendor, product_type) upfront. However, it omits created_on_min/max and limit from the summary, though these are in the schema.

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 begins with 'List products', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_product (single product), count_products (count), and search_products (search) by focusing on listing with filters. The optional filters are named, and pagination is implied, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to list products with optional filters. It provides context for pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for keyword search use search_products, or for a single product use get_product). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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