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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the tool only applies to brand-registered sellers, and it reports a gap (ASINs with no A+ content) rather than only existing documents.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it returns comes first, then routing examples. The status list is illustrative rather than wasteful. No filler sentences.

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 (documents with statuses, covered ASINs, and the no-A+ gap list). The only remaining gap is scale or pagination behavior for large catalogs, a minor omission for a read-only status tool.

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% and the schema explains both the account and marketplace_id parameters, including the inferred-marketplace behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 names the resource (A+ content documents) and states exactly what is returned: each document's status and covered ASINs, plus which listed ASINs lack A+ content. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_listing_issues or get_buybox_status. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two concrete example questions ('which products have no A+', 'was my A+ approved') tell the agent exactly which user intents route here. It gives no explicit exclusions or pointer to an alternative tool, so the when-not-to-use side is absent.

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