list_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It discloses that the tool returns a summarized view (slug, display name, publisher, one-line summary, availability) rather than full product data, and it implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List.' It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a parameterless list tool this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in the first sentence and adding only the necessary output detail and guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, how that output is meant to be used, and where to go for full details (get_product). There are no material gaps for a list endpoint of this kind.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. Per the rubrics, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description has no parameter semantics to add, so this score reflects that the absence of parameters is clear and complete.

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 a specific verb+resource statement: 'List every Sklarstad LLC product.' It goes on to enumerate the returned fields, which makes the tool's scope precise and immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_product tool that provides 'full details.'

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before calling get_product, to decide which product is relevant. This is a clear usage directive with an explicit alternative, leaving no room for confusion about its role in a workflow.

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