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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real value by disclosing cost ("Flat 5 points per successful run"), which annotations would not cover. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens on an invalid seller ID, and any rate-limit or auth context.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose and return fields first, cost second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, cost, and the shape of the returned profile. It lacks only explicit alternative routing and failure behavior, which are minor for a straightforward lookup.

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 both the seller ID and the domain enum are fully self-documenting in the schema. The phrase "by seller ID" merely points at the seller parameter without adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get an Amazon seller profile by seller ID") and enumerates the returned fields (name, rating, business details, contact info). This distinguishes it from run_amazon_seller_products by scope, but it never explicitly names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 identifies the required input (a seller ID) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like run_amazon_seller_products or run_ebay_seller. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb and field list.

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