Aggregated product issues

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds significant context about account type restrictions and filter constraints, which are not in annotations. It doesn't detail pagination behavior or edge cases, but the schema covers page_size and page_token.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence provides essential information: what it returns, key restrictions, and an alternative. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values (stats and itemLevelIssues). It covers account-type restrictions and filter limitations. It doesn't detail response structure or pagination flow, but schema covers pagination parameters. Adequate for a read-only listing tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the filter constraint with an example but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema. The baseline is appropriate at 3.

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 tool lists aggregate product statuses per reporting context and country, with specific stats and itemLevelIssues. It distinguishes itself from get_product for single product issues, and the verb 'lists' with resource 'aggregate product statuses' is specific.

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?

Explicitly states it works only for sub-accounts and standalone accounts, not advanced accounts, and limits the filter to reporting_context and country. It also directs users to get_product for single product issues, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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