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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns scores, worst-scoring listings, and fixes, but it does not disclose details like how many listings are included, whether results are ranked, or any filtering behavior beyond the optional ASIN parameter.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool provides, and the second gives concrete usage intent. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core return value (scores, worst listings, fixes) and the key use cases, which is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly. Minor details like result count or ranking order are not essential for invocation.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'asin' parameter at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance about the ASIN filter, which keeps this at baseline.

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 identifies the resource ('listing audit scores' and 'worst-scoring listings') and the intended outcome ('fixes'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from broad siblings like get_account_health or get_sales by its focus on listing quality, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives explicit usage triggers: 'listing quality' and 'what to fix on my listing'. This tells an agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative.

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