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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it counts FBA + AWD + inbound + open purchase orders, is lead-time-aware, is explicitly advisory, and directs the agent to repeat quote_rules caveats when presenting numbers. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 dense with useful specifics and contains no filler, but it is packed into a single long sentence with many clauses. It is still understandable and front-loaded, though a two-sentence structure would improve parseability.

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 present, the description enumerates the main output categories: runout dates, reorder-by dates, suggested units, and the advisory affordability view. It also includes an explicit caveat-handling instruction, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds a helpful contextual clue about the seller-connection scope but does not materially extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 states a concrete deliverable: per-ASIN runout dates, lead-time-aware reorder-by dates, suggested units, and a specific affordability view. It also scopes the tool to one seller connection, distinguishing it from broader reporting siblings like forecast_report.

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 clear context: this is a single-seller-connection reorder planning tool with a specific advisory angle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is stated clearly enough to disambiguate from broader forecasting or inventory tools.

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