list_product_feed_uploads

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some value by specifying 'recent' and 'ingestion history,' implying a time-scoped, historical read operation. But it does not describe pagination semantics, default ordering, ad account scoping, or response shape, which are important behavioral details for a listing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, and the primary action is stated immediately. It is concise, though the shortness contributes to missing parameter and behavioral details.

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 4 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It communicates the high-level purpose but leaves crucial invocation details such as pagination parameters, account scoping, and return format unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters (`after`, `limit`, `before`, `ad_account_id`). The word 'recent' weakly implies time-based filtering relevant to `before`/`after`, but no parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 names the resource ('product feed uploads') and adds useful context ('ingestion history'), making its purpose immediately understandable. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the closely related sibling `list_product_feeds`, though the focus on uploads/history makes the distinction recoverable.

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 'Useful to debug catalog fetch issues' gives a concrete, actionable use case, which is clear contextual guidance for an agent. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name any alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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