pp_get_products_by_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes non-obvious behavioral context: the 1000-item page ceiling is expensive in context and rate limit, which is operational knowledge not present in the annotations or schema.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter advice; every clause earns its place. Slightly informal phrasing ('a big page is expensive in context and in rate limit') keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is largely sufficient. However, with no output schema there is no statement of what a product record contains, how pagination continuation is detected, or whether results are ordered, which a list tool should disclose.

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 67% (page and page_size have descriptions). The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that `folder_id` corresponds to the `folder_id` field on a product (i.e., where to obtain it) and warns that a large `page_size` costs context and rate-limit budget. Only `page` remains undocumented.

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+resource (all products) scoped to a single promotional folder, and clarifies the domain term 'actie' as 'folder'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as pp_get_products_by_retailer or pp_list_products, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives practical sizing advice ('ask for what the question needs') but never states when to choose this tool over pp_get_products_by_retailer, pp_list_products, or pp_get_promotional_products. Usage is implied by the folder scope rather than spelled out.

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