list_combos

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature of the operation. The description adds the site-wide scope but says nothing about pagination behavior, authentication needs, or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear routing instruction to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and where to get related details. A minor gap remains around return format or pagination behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 all four parameters (page, term, limit, include_guide) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('List') and resource ('combo/bundle products') with scope ('of the site'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_combo_items by assigning composition details to that tool. An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_combo_items for combo composition details, which is the most relevant alternative. However, it does not state when-not to use this tool versus other listing tools like list_products or search_products, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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