Meta catalog diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are grouped by severity (MUST_FIX vs WARNING) and include the number of affected items, which is useful output context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose pagination, scope limits, or whether results are live vs cached.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool identity and then enumerates severities and example issue categories. Every clause contributes content; it is efficiently structured though the example list is a touch long.

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 diagnostics tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers the resource, the severity taxonomy, and the fact that affected-item counts are returned. With no output schema present, this is close to complete; only usage routing and result-shape edge cases are missing.

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 schema already documents types, client_id, and catalog_id including their empty/default fallback behavior. The description's mention of 'issues by type and severity' loosely maps to the types parameter but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 verb+resource (Meta catalog diagnostics) and enumerates what the tool surfaces: issues by type and severity (MUST_FIX, WARNING) with example categories like pixel connection, invalid content ids, missing attributes, image quality, and policy violations. It is clearly distinguishable from a plain product listing such as meta_catalog_products, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling (merchant_product_issues).

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?

The description says what the tool reports but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives such as merchant_product_issues, meta_dataset_quality, or meta_catalog_products. Usage is only weakly implied by the topic; there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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