Merchant Center account issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false, so 'Read only' is redundant. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by disclosing the return shape (title, severity, detail, documentation link, impacted destinations per country) and the severity taxonomy (CRITICAL, ERROR, SUGGESTION), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits pagination, auth, or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scoped to one dense sentence plus a short safety tag; every clause carries information. The field enumeration is slightly list-heavy but earns its place given the missing output schema.

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 read-only, 3-optional-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the issue domain, and the returned fields well enough to call it correctly. What is missing is only routing guidance toward merchant_product_issues.

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 client_id, account_id, and language_code are fully documented in the schema (including the multi-client requirement and BCP-47 language format). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (account-level issues of the client's Merchant Center account) with concrete scope and enumerates the issue categories (suspensions, policy, shipping, tax, website claim). The 'Account-level' wording cleanly separates it from the sibling merchant_product_issues, so the agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Implicit usage is clear from the description (diagnose account-level Merchant Center problems), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to the obvious alternative merchant_product_issues. Usage is inferable but left to the agent.

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