Merchant Center feed health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('this reports...'). Beyond that it adds genuinely useful behavior: product-status data lags reality by ~30 minutes and CRITICAL account issues halt offer serving entirely — freshness and severity semantics an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then impact, then report contents, then latency caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. The dense em-dash style makes it slightly heavy for its length, but each clause carries real information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still previews the payload shape and severity semantics. Combined with a single optional parameter, rich annotations, and the API reference link, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

One optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents that account_id comes from list_merchant_accounts and defaults to merchant.account_id in config. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('reports' Merchant Center feed health) and enumerates exactly what is returned: approved/pending/disapproved counts per reporting context, top product issues with doc links, and account-level issues. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_merchant_accounts (which yields IDs) and from generic reporting tools like run_gaql.

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?

Gives strong context for when this matters ('disapproved feed items silently starve Shopping and Performance Max campaigns' and 'CRITICAL ones stop offers serving entirely'), which frames it as a diagnostic tool. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state explicit exclusions, so the routing guidance stops short of a 5.

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