market_sync_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it is experimental, returns at most 100 items, emits specific fields (identityType=id, pages=0, size=identities.length), and states there is no purchase or persistent basket mutation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the experimental caveat, then the advisory warning, then behavior. Each sentence adds necessary information; only the technical emission detail feels slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 sync tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this description covers the critical context: purpose, cardinality, experimental status, misuse warning, and no side effects. It does not explain how to initiate a refresh or what 'explicitly requested' means in practice, but an agent can safely invoke it with the provided information.

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 80%, so the parameters are mostly self-documenting. The description adds a little semantic value by linking identities.length to the response size and enforcing the 100-item cap, but it does not explain the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch up to 100 product identities in one call for an explicitly requested refresh.' This distinguishes it from search or detail tools, though it never names a specific sibling tool to differentiate against.

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 explicitly says when to use ('explicitly requested refresh') and when not to ('Never switch to this tool to bypass a basket budget or run large live tests'). It does not name the alternative tools to use instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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