List product feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond those, the description adds a meaningful data-freshness caveat: product_count can read 0 while an upload is processing, and product_count reflects ingested, ads-eligible products. That is valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: it names the resource, lists the useful fields, and then adds two short caveats. The nested parenthetical is dense but each clause carries actionable meaning, so there is little waste.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies scope, key returned fields, a freshness caveat, and the absence of a single-feed alternative. Minor omissions such as pagination or maximum result size are unlikely given the empty input schema.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the schema cannot provide parameter meaning and the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'feed_id' as an output identifier rather than an input, adding a small amount of context without needing to explain any parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Product feeds in the ad account'), enumerates the key returned attributes (countries, currencies, campaign_count, product_count), and clarifies that there is no single-feed getter, so an agent can distinguish this listing tool from sibling feed-related tools.

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?

It usefully notes that there is no get-one-feed endpoint, implying this tool is also the way to inspect an individual feed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus feed-upload or feed-status siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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