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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions required, rate limits, or the side effects of mutating actions like createFeed and updateProduct. It only notes the supported operations without their behavioral implications, leaving the agent to guess about safety and reversibility.

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 a compact two-sentence block that front-loads the resource and then lists the actions. There is one small redundancy (listing actions before also saying 'read and update products'), but no major padding.

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 multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation surface and points to adgpt_capabilities for parameter details. However, it omits return behavior, error handling, and safety implications for mutations, leaving material gaps for an agent.

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 input schema defines the action enum and a free-form params object with 50% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the action names, instead deferring to adgpt_capabilities. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema description and the explicit deferral mechanism.

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 the resource (product feeds and items) and enumerates the supported actions (import a feed, poll import status, read and update products). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling upload_product_image tool which also touches products.

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 actions are listed with brief context (e.g., 'poll import status'), which implies when each would be used, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules relative to alternatives. The pointer to adgpt_capabilities for parameters adds some operational context but does not guide tool selection.

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