sync_feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool downloads and updates product feeds and refreshes the local DB, which reveals its primary effect. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting local changes, resource consumption, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first states the action and sources, the second clarifies the purpose and when to run it. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple tool shape (2 optional params, no output schema, clear siblings), the description provides all necessary high-level context: what it does, what data it touches, and when to run it. The schema fills in parameter specifics. No significant gaps.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for 'force' and 'merchants'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Download and update') and names the exact resources ('product feeds from Awin and Tradedoubler') and the purpose ('refresh the local product database'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_products, match_bom, generate_affiliate_link, and list_merchants.

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 phrase 'Run this to refresh the local product database' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies it is the go-to tool for updating local data before searching or matching, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, which would warrant a 5.

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