query_product_feed_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation filtered by ad group product filters, which is core behavioral information. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return shape, authentication needs, or how the filters interact with feed products beyond 'matching.'

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guideline is placed immediately after. Every phrase adds value.

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 adequate for a basic agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it, especially given the self-explanatory after and limit parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and several undocumented parameters, the description leaves out important details about pagination behavior and the role of ad_account_id, making it incomplete for fully autonomous invocation.

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 only 40%, and the description adds little parameter-level detail. It references 'ad group product filters,' which gives context to the filters parameter, but it does not explain after, limit, or ad_account_id. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 specific verb ('List'), a target resource ('products in a feed'), and a clear scoping criterion ('matching ad group product filters'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_product_feeds or patch_product_feed_products, since it is about querying products rather than managing feeds.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use case: 'Use to validate targeting before creating ad_group with product_set.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use case is direct and actionable.

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