list_product_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. The only behavioral hint is that results include feed_id values for downstream tools. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering defaults, response shape, ad account requirements, authentication expectations, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with six pagination and filtering parameters.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no filler, and the second sentence adds a valuable routing hint for using feed_id downstream. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too incomplete. It fails to explain pagination semantics, parameter meanings, default values, return format, or any constraints. The single downstream hint about feed_id is useful, but overall the agent has insufficient context to use the tool well.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It only mentions 'ad account' and 'feed_id' conceptually, which loosely maps to ad_account_id and the output, but after, limit, order, before, and include are entirely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, this is a serious gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List product feeds for the ad account.' It also signals the tool's role as a discovery step by saying 'Use feed_id with query/patch/sftp tools,' which helps distinguish it from other product-feed-related tools like list_product_feed_uploads. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming sibling distinctions, but the purpose is clear.

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 gives actionable context: after listing, the returned feed_id should be used with query/patch/sftp tools. This implies when this tool is the right entry point for feed management. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with list_product_feed_uploads or other list tools.

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