list_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the return is metadata-only with a specific field list, which prevents the user from expecting full product details. It also signals a read-oriented operation via the verb 'list'. It lacks mention of pagination or response envelope, but the core behavioral limitation is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and directly states the output scope and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?

Given no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned fields (id, name, slug, price, image, status) and direct users to get_product for more detail. It does not address pagination despite page/limit parameters, which is a minor gap for effective invocation. Overall, it provides sufficient context to select and use the tool for common purposes.

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 schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters (page, term, limit), each with a brief meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource ('List products of the site') and defines the exact scope with metadata fields. It also points to 'get_product' for full details, distinguishing itself from that sibling tool. This makes the purpose immediately clear and differentiates it.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for a metadata-only list of products, and use 'get_product' when full details are needed. It does not, however, explicitly address when to use this vs. 'search_products' or other listing tools, so it falls short of a full 5 but still provides useful decision guidance.

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