Merchant Center product issues

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description needn't cover that. It adds genuinely useful undisclosed traits: the result ordering by click potential, the ~30-minute data lag behind feed changes, and the per-issue severity/actionability detail. Missing pagination/cursor behavior keeps it from 5.

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 the core purpose and structure, then elaborates. Densely informative but each clause (sorting rationale, issues_by_code, data lag) earns its place; the trailing Merchant API link is marginally useful. Slightly long but not padded.

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, return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still usefully signals sorting, latency and issue fields. For a 4-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, it is essentially complete; only pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces semantics (statuses, issue codes sourced from issues_by_code) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (lists) and resource (products with issues), and explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling get_merchant_feed_health by describing it as 'the products behind the feed-health counts'. An agent can distinguish this drill-down tool from the summary tool without opening either schema.

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?

Provides strong context: it lists by status, points to issues_by_code and get_merchant_feed_health as sources for the issue_code filter, and explains the prioritization (high click potential first, because fixing them recovers traffic). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming a contrasting sibling directly, so not a full 5.

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