get_product_feed_sftp_access

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' signals a read operation and the listed fields hint at the response contents, but the description does not mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing/active SFTP setup, or any caveats about credential handling.

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 short sentences, each carrying independent value: one states exactly what is retrieved, the other states when to use it. The action is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a straightforward read operation: it names the output fields and the use case. However, the missing explanation of the optional ad_account_id parameter and the lack of any behavioral or prerequisite details leave it incomplete for an agent that has no other guidance.

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 description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: 'product feed' merely restates feed_id's description. It does not explain ad_account_id at all, and with only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for that gap but did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('SFTP access details for a product feed'), and lists what is returned (host, username, path). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_product_feed_sftp_access or pause_product_feed_sftp_access, which perform different actions on the same resource.

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 phrase 'Use to configure catalog uploads' provides a clear, practical usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is specific enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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