pp_list_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default sort order, and that promo_group_id returns every participant of one shared action and can be read off a product to expand its group. It does not mention pagination behavior, the one trait annotations leave untouched.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and default ordering, followed by routing and then the two non-obvious parameters. No filler sentences.

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?

With 12 optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious filters (promo group, validity window) and the default sort. Price, name and page filters are self-documented at 100% coverage, and return values need no explanation without an output schema, so this is nearly complete for a filtering list tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema alone does not convey in English: min_valid_from/max_valid_from bound the promotion start date, and promo_group_id is described as a cross-call linking key. That is meaningful added value rather than restatement.

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 and resource ("List products") plus the default ordering ("newest extraction first"), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (pp_search). An agent can distinguish it from the search tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use pp_search when the user named a product, use this tool to enumerate by retailer, folder, promo group or validity window. However, it never acknowledges the overlapping siblings pp_get_products_by_folder, pp_get_products_by_retailer, pp_get_promotional_products, leaving an agent unsure whether those are preferred for the same enumerations.

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