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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: immediate job_id return, the polling handoff, and the point-billing model (base 10P per job, 5P per result, reserve-then-charge-actual semantics). Auth requirements and rate limits are not covered, so a 4 rather than 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 async contract and cost are front-loaded in the first sentences, and every sentence carries information. The English/Korean duplication of the same two facts is mildly redundant, though defensible for a bilingual audience.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return value (job_id) and the follow-up tool for results, and it discloses the cost model. It stops short of covering failure/retry behavior beyond what idempotency_key implies.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url/asin exclusivity, the 1-100 range for max_results, and the idempotency key format. The description only restates the max_results reservation behavior already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Collect Amazon product reviews') with explicit scope ('up to 100') and enumerates the returned fields (rating, title, text, date, verified purchase, helpful count). This clearly separates it from the sibling amazon_product, which fetches product data rather than reviews.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the tool is asynchronous and routes it to the sibling scrape_jobs_status for retrieving results, which is the key decision an agent must make here. It lacks a when-not condition (e.g., when to prefer a synchronous alternative), so it falls just short of a 5.

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