get_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to disclose safety. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting that feed v2 includes verification metadata (brand_verified, kyb_tier, etc.), enriching the agent's understanding of the returned resource. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds valuable technical detail. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains the purpose and key details of the feed (URL, metadata). It does not describe the URL format or feed structure, but the agent is expected to fetch and parse it. Sibling tools are unrelated, so context is sufficient. Slightly improved by mentioning feed v2 metadata, but could note the feed format.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 clearly states the tool returns the URL of the droplinked public product feed, specifying the verb ('Return the URL'), resource ('public product feed'), and purpose ('so an agent can fetch the canonical catalogue snapshot'). It also mentions feed v2 metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with attestation or merchant data.

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 usage when needing the canonical catalogue snapshot via the feed URL. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but sibling tools have distinct purposes (attestation, inventory), so context is clear. A score of 4 reflects adequate implicit guidance without explicit exclusions.

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