list_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level disclosure (that a pricing policy accompanies the SKU rows), but says nothing about ordering, completeness, pagination, or whether the category filter is an exact match.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the parameter note; every clause carries information. Minor waste from the trailing line break and the slightly list-like formatting.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter listing tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape. The description covers purpose, return contents, and the one parameter's allowed values, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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 0% and the schema declares category as an unconstrained anyOf string/null with no enum, so the description is the sole source of the allowed values whole_bean, ground, cold_brew, and confirms it is optional. It does not state case sensitivity or the behavior when omitted (list all), keeping it off a 5.

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 ('SKUs') and enumerates the returned fields (tier, pack size, price, unit cost, pricing policy), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_price_elasticity or competitor_price_index, but the resource-level purpose is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the sibling pricing tools. The only context given is that the category parameter is an optional filter, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing.

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