Merchant Center product issues

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it scans every page of products up to max_pages and reports a truncation flag, which tells the agent how to interpret partial results. It stops short of 5 by not mentioning auth requirements or rate-limit/scan-cost implications of paging up to 200 pages.

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?

Two densely packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the inline return-shape sketch is justified because there is no output schema. Slightly long, but almost every clause carries information about either scope or output structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully closes that gap by specifying the returned keys (products, offer_id, issues, scanned, truncated). It covers paging and truncation semantics but says nothing about authentication, quota, or what destinations/labels mean, leaving minor gaps for a multi-parameter read 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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by tying max_pages to the scan behavior and the returned truncated flag, clarifying why the agent should care about that parameter rather than just its range.

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 names a specific resource and scope: Merchant Center products with item-level issues (disapprovals, demotions, warnings) per destination, plus the attribute to fix. This is far more specific than the sibling names merchant_report_query or merchant_data_sources, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (this is the tool you call to audit product-level issues), and the only_with_issues default of true hints at the default audit workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of when a sibling such as merchant_report_query would be preferable.

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