products_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Read'), supports pagination (via 'after' cursor and 'limit'), and allows property selection. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key details about parameters. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but could be slightly more structured by separating pagination and property control into distinct points.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers pagination and property selection but misses details like default behaviors, error cases, or example usage. For a list tool with no structured support, it should do more to compensate.

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 explains 'properties' (controls returned fields) and 'after' (paging cursor), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover 'limit' (pagination size) or provide examples or constraints for parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Read a page of products' specifies the verb (read) and resource (products), and 'Control what is returned via the `properties` query param' adds detail about customization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_read' or 'products_search', which is why it's not a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination and property control but doesn't compare to siblings like 'products_read' (for single product) or 'products_search' (for filtered queries), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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