get_product_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral nuance: a campaign without a feed link returns NOT_FEED_LINKED rather than an error. This is non-obvious and adds real value. However, it does not mention other behaviors like read-only nature, permissions, or error handling beyond that specific case. Given the tool is a simple getter, this level of disclosure is above average.

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 description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second adds a caveat. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is concise while still providing the essential details.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits important details: it does not describe the output structure or the meaning of eligibility statuses. It also leaves the customer_id parameter unexplained. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of parameter clarification and response format makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further guessing.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'requested campaign' and 'linked merchant' but does not explicitly map them to campaign_id and customer_id. The description does not clarify whether customer_id is required or how it relates to the merchant. At 0% coverage, this is a significant gap; the agent must infer param meaning from names alone, which may not be sufficient.

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 exactly what the tool does: it retrieves Merchant Center feed health, specifically product counts by eligibility status scoped to a campaign and linked merchant. The verb 'get' and resource 'product status' are specific, and the scope (campaign and merchant) distinguishes it from siblings like get_shopping_performance or get_listing_groups. The mention of the NOT_FEED_LINKED return value further clarifies the tool's role.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need Merchant Center feed health for a campaign) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools like get_shopping_performance or get_listing_groups, so an agent might not know if this is the right choice versus those. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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