List products

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: default sort order (newest first), response shape (lean summaries), currency-unit semantics for prices, and the effect of include=variants/media. This is strong but not exhaustive — for example, pagination behavior is not described.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and response shape, the second clarifies price semantics, and the third explains filters and include options. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, ordering, filtering capabilities, and how to opt into heavier embedded data. The main gap would be pagination defaults, but this is minor for a list endpoint given the rest of the context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: product_ids doubles as a single-product lookup up to 200 IDs, include=variants embeds prices and inventory, and prices are integers in the smallest currency unit. It does not clarify page defaults, but the added semantics justify above baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource — "List a store's products" — and adds concrete distinguishing detail: newest first, lean summaries, and the specific summary fields (name, status, thumbnail, variant count, price range). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ecommerce_listProductVariantsV1 and ecommerce_listDiscountsV1.

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 on how to use the tool: list products with filters by status, free text, or product IDs, and optionally embed variants or media via include. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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