List Product Feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by describing the return fields ('feed IDs, names, schedules, and latest upload status') and the nature of feeds, which enriches understanding beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 plus a terse args block, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler words, and every sentence earns its place. It is efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is a simple read-only list operation. The description provides the return fields, the key parameters, and context about feeds. It does not discuss error conditions or pagination, but the limit parameter and read-only nature make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly. It could briefly mention the response_format default, but that is in the schema. Overall, nothing critical is missing.

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 repeats the two primary parameters (catalog_id and limit) but does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema covers limit with min/max/default, and catalog_id has a description. The description does not mention response_format, but the schema describes it. Schema coverage is 67%, but the missing limit description is self-explanatory via constraints. Overall, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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, 'Lists', and a specific resource, 'product feeds for a catalog'. It also adds clarifying context by explaining what feeds are ('automated data sources that keep catalogs up-to-date'), which helps distinguish this from sibling tools like meta_list_product_catalogs (which lists catalogs) and meta_list_products (which lists products). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to inspect feeds for a catalog) by explaining what feeds are, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides enough context for an agent to infer the correct scenario, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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