List every product

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world nature are covered. The description adds scope ('every product') and intended audience ('human/catalog helper'), but it does not describe return shape, ordering, or other runtime behavior beyond what the title and annotations imply. No contradiction exists, but the added behavioral detail is modest.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the routing guidance is delivered as a clear, separate second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It states the scope, identifies the intended audience, and explicitly points to the alternative for agent-facing use. With no required arguments and annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing for 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?

There are zero specified parameters and zero required parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The schema is fully covered with no defined properties, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; nothing in the description is missing on this front.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List every Aziel Eliab product,' and it identifies itself as a 'human/catalog helper,' which separates it from its sibling tools. It also explicitly names fraggate_list as the alternative, so an agent can distinguish the tools without inspecting schemas.

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 sentence 'Prefer fraggate_list for the agent door' explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to prefer instead. The 'human/catalog helper' label establishes the intended context, making the routing guidance direct rather than implied.

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