list_product_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or what an image entry looks like. '(Holded API v2)' is provenance, not behavioral disclosure. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The only marginal filler is the '(Holded API v2)' tag, which does not aid tool selection.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the resource and scope adequately, but it leaves the return shape (URLs, sizes, ordering) and any pagination unspecified, so an agent cannot fully predict the response.

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 parameter productId has a schema description and 100% coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (all images of a product), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling getters get_product_main_image and get_product_secondary_image by the 'all images' scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the plural scope is implicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'all' — an agent can infer this is the collection-level read versus the single-image siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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