get-product-media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the status lifecycle (UPLOADED / PROCESSING / READY / FAILED) and that media items can be in flight, which tells the agent this is an asynchronous-polling read. It does not state read-only-ness, pagination, or behavior for an unknown productId, so it falls short of complete.

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 sentences, zero filler. The return-value summary is front-loaded and the usage hint follows, which is the right ordering for a read tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does (status enum, alt text, image URL). What is missing is whether results are paginated or how many items come back, which matters for a media list, but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it is absent.

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?

Only one parameter (productId) and schema coverage is 100%, with a GID example already in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or alternate-input guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 and resource ("List a product's media") and enumerates the returned fields (processing status, alt text, image URL). That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from get-product-by-id or get-product-variants-detailed without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to call it after add-product-media to confirm processing finished, which is concrete timing guidance tied to a named sibling. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get-product-by-id), but for a single-purpose read tool the context is clear.

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