get_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default sort ('Sorted by id by default') and the DB-validation constraint on category, which are genuinely useful. However, it does not state the return format, whether all products are returned when no filters are applied, or how limit/offset interplay with the default ordering — notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each remaining sentence earns its place by clarifying validation and filter semantics. Perfectly sized for a filtered-list tool.

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?

Despite having six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete for correct invocation: all filter semantics are covered and the default ordering is disclosed. The only genuine gap is the absence of any statement about returned fields or no-parameter behavior, but for a simple list tool these are reasonably inferable, so the definition is only mildly incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3 with the schema bearing the load. The description adds marginal value: it clarifies that category is validated against existing DB categories and restates the inStock and price filter logic already present in the schema. It does not fully compensate beyond that, but the schema already documents all six parameters adequately.

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+resource: 'List products.' This clearly identifies the tool as the product-listing operation and distinguishes it from siblings like get_customers and get_orders by entity type. The analytic siblings (top_products_by_quantity, etc.) are also implicitly set apart, though the description does not explicitly contrast against them.

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 explains how each filter behaves (category validation, inStock stock_quantity > 0, min/max price), which gives implicit context on how to narrow a product query. However, it never states any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as top_products_by_quantity or revenue_by_period, leaving the selection between raw listing and analytic tools to inference.

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