get_feed_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: repeated polling, terminal statuses, and extra extraction for PRODUCT_CREATION feeds. However, it omits practical details such as polling cadence, what a FAILED response contains, and whether the feed result is consumed/destroyed on completion.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and expected loop, then add the one special case an agent needs to know. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers the call pattern, termination conditions, and the special PRODUCT_CREATION result extraction. It does not describe the output shape for other feed types or failure payloads, but given no output schema these are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that feed_id comes from the named async operations, giving the parameter meaningful provenance and role. For a single string parameter this is sufficient semantic grounding, even without format details.

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 verb ('Poll'), a specific resource ('async feed'), and explicitly ties the feed to five mutation tools, making it unmistakable which operation this is for. It also distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which serve this polling 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?

It clearly tells when to use the tool: after invoking one of the listed async product operations, and it specifies the expected loop until COMPLETED or FAILED. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no sibling tool offers equivalent polling behavior, so the context is still clear.

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