list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, response format, default pagination behavior, or performance considerations. For a listing tool with no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., read-only safe, returns array of products) would be expected.

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 concise sentence front-loaded with the core purpose (list/search products) followed by supported filter dimensions. Focused and efficient with no wasted words. Good density of useful information.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers main dimensions (search, status, taxonomy filters) but omits pagination guidance, default behavior, and return value shape. With 9 parameters and no output schema, it would benefit from a bit more context while remaining reasonable.

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 56%, meaning several params (tag_id, type_id, category_id, collection_id) have no schema-level descriptions. The description mentions these filters at a high level ('filtering by collection/category/tag/type id') which partially compensates, but doesn't add detail about accepted ID formats or behavior when multiple filters combine. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage with some description compensation.

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 this tool lists/searches products and enumerates the filtering dimensions (free-text, status, collection/category/tag/type). It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_product (single product retrieval) and list_orders/list_customers (other entities). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling list 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?

The description lists what filtering is supported but does not state WHEN to prefer this over alternatives like get_product, or when not to use it. No guidance on pagination via limit/offset or the tradeoff with fields is explicitly described in the prose, though the schema documents some of it.

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