list_commodities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses output format details ('Showing X-Y of Z commodities'), pagination behavior, count-only mode, and subtle filter semantics such as stale_days including never-priced commodities and excluding the book default currency. It also states that filters AND-combine, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 efficient and well-structured despite its length. The lead sentence states the core purpose, the next paragraph covers output and pagination, the highlighted work-list paragraph addresses the key operational use case, and the Args section cleanly maps to the schema. No sentence is 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?

The description is complete for a read-only listing tool: it covers output shape, pagination, filtering semantics, count mode, verbosity trade-offs, and a concrete multi-tool workflow. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results without additional 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. Every parameter is explained with behavioral meaning: verbose's output-style difference, limit's max and count-only sentinel, offset's base, stale_days' date rule and exclusions, and held_only's account-denomination filter and AND-combination.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List all commodities... in the book'), immediately clarifying the tool's scope. It also distinguishes the primary listing purpose from related commodity actions like create_commodity and create_prices, and describes the specialized stale-price work-list mode.

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 explicit usage conditions: when compact text is appropriate vs verbose JSON, when limit=0 is useful for count-only, and exactly which filter combination ('stale_days=30, held_only=true') produces the price-update work list. It even routes the follow-up action to create_prices, making the intended workflow clear.

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