get_products_user

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds rich behavioral context: it states auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled to respect LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, and it details the return format and error payload semantics for 401/403/404/422. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 structured with clear labeled sections, front-loads the read-only nature and endpoint, and every sentence delivers useful information: behavior, auth, throttling, returns, errors, and usage guidance. It is longer than minimal but not bloated; relative to the amount of operational detail, it is efficient.

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 only one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates fully by explaining what is returned (HTTP status plus JSON body), how errors surface, and the operational constraints. It leaves no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'User id or email' with 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'provided user id' without adding format, validation rules, or usage nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get products of user' with the endpoint GET /v2/users/{id}/products, and clarifies it returns a list of all products for the specified user id. This clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond naming related Users tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also provides a when-not: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool,' and lists related Users tools as alternatives, giving an agent concrete routing guidance.

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