List products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate those. It adds genuinely non-annotation context: the required scope (view_profile), the native endpoint reviewed, and the fact that no local effect approval is needed — useful for an agent deciding whether it can invoke this.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the scope and safety facts are stated compactly. Slightly terse but each sentence carries 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema covers both params, this is adequate. It is thin on return-value/listing behavior (what the list contains, how the cursor paginates), but no output schema exists and annotations handle the read-only signal.

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%, so both parameters (account, page_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb and resource ("List products") and adds the native endpoint (GET /products) and scope (view_profile), which gives more than pure tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from the many sibling list_* tools (list_categories, list_variants, list_accounts, etc.), so an agent gets no differentiation signal.

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?

"Read only; no local effect approval required" is a safety/approval note rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product or list_categories, and no prerequisites described.

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