Get all products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds beyond this: it specifies the return includes supplier information and states the module prerequisite. This is useful behavioral context that annotations do not provide, though it does not describe pagination or error behavior.

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 short but contains minor redundancy: the first sentence repeats the tool's title verbatim before expanding. The key details (supplier info, module requirement) are clear and the content is otherwise efficient.

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 simple parameterless-in-practice list tool with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description provides essential prerequisites and return content. An output schema is absent, but the description notes supplier info inclusion. No critical missing information for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'administration' parameter fully described via its enum and description. The description's mention of 'this administration' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('products'), and scope ('for this administration'), and adds detail about included supplier information. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_relations or list_sales_invoices, all of which target different resources.

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 clearly indicates the prerequisite that the trade module must be active, giving the agent a concrete condition for when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly name excluded scenarios or alternatives, but among siblings there is no competing product-list tool, so the context is sufficient.

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