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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the return shape ({attributes:[{code, label, dataType}], returned, total}), that results are not paginated (returned === total), and that feed_id changes the result set by adding taxonomy_* attributes. The import-status gate is a real behavioral constraint an agent would otherwise trip over.

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 core purpose and the map_feed_attribute dependency are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries actionable information. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy in the middle (several em-dash asides), which slightly hurts scannability even though little is redundant.

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 two-optional-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, total-vs-returned contract, pagination behavior, parameter trade-offs, and the prerequisite import state. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to call it correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: feed_id is described as enabling full parity with the feed editor and adding taxonomy attributes, while project_id is described as optional with inference rules and a required-otherwise failure mode pointing to list_projects. This is meaning well beyond the bare integer properties.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the source attributes the store provides") and immediately scopes it as the valid platform_code values for map_feed_attribute, with concrete examples (brand, ean, price, color, category_name). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_ad_attributes, get_marketplace_attributes, and list_store_categories, which target different attribute namespaces.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ("Call this BEFORE map_feed_attribute to choose a valid platform_code"), explains the feed_id vs project_id choice and its taxonomy consequence, and names the fallback path ("project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects"). It also states a precondition (dataStatus='ok', see get_import_status), covering when-not-to-call as well.

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