get_merchant_feed_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'Product-status data lags reality by ~30 minutes' and mentions that critical account issues 'stop offers serving entirely,' providing context beyond 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?

The description is concise (under 80 words) and well-structured: a clear first sentence naming the tool, followed by a detailed second sentence explaining outputs, and a final sentence specifying the parameter. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently explains return values (counts per context, top product issues with links, account-level issues) and adds a critical timing caveat. It also references the source tool for the parameter, providing complete context for agent usage.

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 input schema only specifies 'account_id' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds: 'account_id: numeric Merchant Center ID from list_merchant_accounts,' clarifying the type, format, and source of the ID, which significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Merchant Center feed health — disapproved products + account issues.' It specifies what it surfaces (approved/pending/disapproved counts per context, top product issues with links, account-level issues) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique focus on feed health.

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 provides context on when to use the tool, e.g., to diagnose feed issues that 'silently starve Shopping and Performance Max campaigns.' It implies usage for feed health diagnostics but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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