products_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Read-only'. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the response shape is identical to the voog://products resource, price fields depend on settings.price_entry_mode, and the 'simplified' field list implies a partial representation. This goes beyond the baseline safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 fairly long but every sentence serves a purpose, covering scope, field list, consistency, follow-up, filtering, and price-mode caveats. It front-loads the core action and is well-structured, though slightly verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields. It also explains the resource consistency, price-mode dependency, and appropriate follow-up tool, making it complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. No pagination info is given, but not essential for a tool that lists all items.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already having descriptive comments. The description repeats the category_id mapping but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does mention follow-up actions, but that's not parameter-level semantics. 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 opens with 'List all ecommerce products on the Voog site', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like product_get (which targets a single product). It also enumerates the exact fields returned, reinforcing its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states to follow up with product_get for per-variant stock, and to call ecommerce_settings_get to determine price mode before using price fields. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance, differentiating it from alternatives.

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