List Products

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

The description adds some context beyond annotations (e.g., return fields like product IDs, names, prices), but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not explicitly note that it is read-only or idempotent, but it is consistent. No contradiction.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief parameter list. No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded. It meets the standard of every sentence earning its place.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and return fields. However, it omits mention of pagination behavior beyond the 'after' cursor and does not reference the 'response_format' parameter. The description is complete for most use cases but has minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section repeats schema parameter descriptions without adding new semantics. It does not explain the 'response_format' parameter, which is present in the schema but omitted from the description.

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 clearly states it 'lists products in a product catalog,' which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'meta_list_product_catalogs' (lists catalogs) and 'meta_get_product' (single product).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, when not to use it, or explicit references to sibling tools like 'meta_list_product_catalogs' for catalogs or 'meta_get_product' for individual products.

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