A product description can read smoothly and still give a shopper the wrong answer. A model might turn an ambiguous specification into a confident promise, mix up two variants, or leave out the condition that makes a feature useful. Editing the wording alone will not catch those problems.

At FXN Holdings, AI helps draft and enrich catalogue content, with people reviewing it before publication. Our article on how we use AI explains that division of responsibility. The checklist below offers a practical way to examine an individual description; it is guidance for reviewers, not a claim that every platform implements the same review tools.

Start with the exact product and its evidence

Before assessing the prose, identify the product the description is meant to represent. Match its model, variant and included accessories to the source material. A description for a product family should not quietly become a description for one particular configuration.

For a hypothetical desk lamp, the available record might specify a USB power connection and adjustable brightness. Neither detail establishes that a mains adaptor is included, that it runs on a battery, or that it supports a particular charging standard. Those are separate claims requiring separate evidence.

A useful working record contains:

  • The product identifier and variant being described.
  • The supplier document or product record supporting each important feature.
  • Any conditions, exclusions or conflicting details.
  • The date the information was obtained, where freshness matters.

If two sources disagree, leave the disputed detail out of the draft until someone resolves it. Asking the model to choose the most plausible answer does not resolve the underlying disagreement.

Separate specifications from interpretations

Read each sentence as a set of claims. Concrete details such as dimensions, materials and compatibility should be traceable to evidence. Descriptive language also deserves attention: calling something waterproof, child-safe or suitable for professional use can add a promise that the original data never made.

Consider this fictional source note: “Adjustable desk lamp; USB powered; adaptor not included.” An acceptable rewrite might explain that the user needs a suitable separate power source. A rewrite promising cordless use would introduce a different capability.

Pay particular attention to words such as “all”, “always” and “guaranteed”. They can turn a limited statement into an absolute one. Preserve the scope of the evidence even when a broader claim would sound more persuasive.

Missing information should remain missing. A short, accurate description is more useful than a complete-looking description assembled from assumptions.

Check whether the description helps someone decide

Once the factual claims are sound, check the description against the reader's likely questions. What is the product for? What comes with it? What must the buyer already have? Which limitations could make it unsuitable?

Put consequential conditions close to the feature they qualify. If an accessory is needed for a function, readers should not have to discover that in an unrelated paragraph. Avoid repeating the same benefit in different words simply to make the page longer.

The surrounding page matters too. A correct description can still mislead if the heading names the wrong variant or the image shows accessories that are not included. Review the title, images, specification fields and descriptive text together.

Our technology platform brings retailer and partner information into a shared catalogue. That makes clear source information valuable at the point of collection, before it is reused in different page layouts.

Review the search preview as carefully as the page

A title or meta description can introduce an unsupported claim even when the article body is accurate. Check these fields separately rather than assuming they are harmless summaries. Image alternative text should describe what the image actually shows, without adding unverified product benefits.

Google's guidance on generative AI content calls for accuracy checks on both content and metadata. It also warns against generating large numbers of pages without adding value for readers. Passing a character-count check does not establish that a description is helpful or correct.

A final review should leave a clear decision: approve the description, return it for a specific correction, or hold it because the evidence is incomplete. Record the unresolved question so the next reviewer does not have to rediscover it.

Make corrections easy to carry forward

When a mistake is found, identify whether it came from the source record, the generated wording or the page template. Correcting only the visible sentence may leave the same problem available to be reused elsewhere.

For example, if an accessory was wrongly marked as included in the underlying record, that record needs attention as well as the description. If the source was correct but the draft overstated it, preserve that example as a review case for future drafts.

This approach keeps the human review focused on decisions that matter to shoppers. To discuss content or catalogue work across our platforms, contact FXN Holdings.