Merchant Center product issues

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

The description adds real substance beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: issue ordering ('worst first'), the inclusion of example products, and the offer_id drill-down mode. 'Changes nothing' duplicates the annotation rather than extending it, which keeps this from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and every sentence carries information. It is a dense single paragraph, however, and the parenthetical examples ('such as a price mismatch or a missing GTIN') add length without changing agent behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape: eligibility counts, an ordered issue list with affected product counts, and sample products. An agent knows what it will get and in what order.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description explicitly explains the modal behavior of offer_id ('that one product's issues in full'), which is a semantic the schema only hints at. The examples parameter is only implicitly covered by 'a few example products'.

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 and resource — it surfaces why products aren't showing on Google, including account-level issues, eligibility counts, and per-issue product impact. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like merchant_report or merchant_accounts by naming the Shopping/free-listings diagnosis context.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: 'Use it when Shopping or Performance Max spend or clicks drop, or products are missing.' That is far better than implied usage, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use when those symptoms are absent.

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