query_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions preview_limit is capped at 50, which is useful, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens with no filters, or any rate limits or auth requirements. For a query tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, though the parameter list could be more integrated with the schema rather than duplicating it.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and a query tool that likely has filtering semantics, the description could explain how filters interact (e.g., are they ANDed?) and what happens when no filters are provided. The cap on preview_limit is disclosed, but other behavioral details are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter's meaning (family, part_number, name, preview_limit) and notes preview_limit is capped at 50, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify that all filters are optional or how they combine (AND vs OR), which would be helpful.

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 the tool queries products and part numbers used to correlate test results by revision, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like query_results and query_specs by focusing on product/part number data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for correlating test results by revision, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus query_specs or query_assets. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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