list_products

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to deliver. 'List products' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, 'Process' received a 2 for being under-specified, whereas this is even more minimal. However, every word earns its place - there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration in the description itself.

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 relative simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While the schema covers parameters adequately, the description fails to provide necessary context about what 'listing products' entails, how results are structured, or when this tool should be used versus alternatives. For even a simple listing tool, more guidance would be helpful for the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'limit') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'List products' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_sales' or 'list_subscriptions' beyond the resource name. While it identifies the resource (products), it lacks a specific verb or scope that would clarify what kind of listing operation this performs.

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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'list_sales' or 'list_subscriptions'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific listing operation is appropriate versus other listing tools available on the server.

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