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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: enumerates every return status ('not_gated', 'already_approved', 'checking', etc.), discloses job mechanics (STRICTLY ONE AT A TIME, ~daily-capped, carry over across days), the async nature (queues a job worked by the browser extension), timing expectations, and the `extension_online` signal for surfacing offline extensions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and structured by concern (what it does, return states, queue behavior, prerequisites, next step). Information-dense with little waste, though the parenthetical status enumeration and repeated queueing details make it a touch long.

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 an async tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: prerequisites, the full set of return outcomes, serial/daily-capped processing semantics, and the required follow-up polling call. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single `asins` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning: 'one or more' establishes plurality, and 'a long list is fine; it just drains serially' clarifies the intended list size. This is solid but not exhaustive (no format guidance for ASIN strings).

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 ('Request an ungate check for one or more gated ASINs') and clearly differentiates the action from siblings like check_eligibility and get_ungate_status by naming the queued-job workflow. An agent can immediately tell what this does versus related tools.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites (SP-API connected AND Sorsa extension installed and online) and an explicit follow-up ('poll get_ungate_status(job_id) after a short wait'). It also implies the re-call case for 'checking'. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., check_eligibility) as explicit alternatives, so not a full 5.

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