get_product_list

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. It only states that the tool retrieves a product list, without revealing any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. Since it's a read operation it's likely benign, but the description fails to explicitly confirm it's non-mutating or describe any pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. This is a significant gap given no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is zero wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately minimal for a straightforward list operation and ranks highly for conciseness.

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 that this tool has 3 parameters, all with defaults, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior and usage. It doesn't explain the meaning of the 'operation' parameter or how pagination works (though the schema covers that). It also doesn't mention what the response looks like or any prerequisites. For a simple read operation, it might be acceptable, but the lack of any additional context beyond the schema makes it incomplete for an agent that needs to call it correctly without prior knowledge.

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 100%, and each parameter (page, operation, page_size) already has a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding, but also doesn't need to because the schema is comprehensive.

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 retrieves a list of products from Mindbox, using a specific verb ('Получение' = getting) and resource ('список товаров' = product list). It distinguishes from siblings like get_customer and get_segments by referencing a different entity type, though it doesn't explicitly compare to a potential get_products alternative. Clear enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 doesn't mention use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like run_operation or create_order. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient for making correct tool selection decisions.

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