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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's 'Read-only' line adds little beyond confirming them. It does add useful pagination context ('one page at a time') and enumerates the returned fields, but does not mention rate limits, auth scope, or ordering.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned fields come first, followed by the disambiguation guidance.

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 helpfully names the fields returned (ASIN, monitoring, Buy Box, price, BSR, rating, reviews, keyword counts) and notes pagination. Annotations cover safety, and params are fully documented in the schema. Only minor details like item ordering or default page size are left to the schema.

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 limit and cursor are already well documented. The description only implies pagination through 'one page at a time' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (returns this account's tracked products), lists the fields returned, and distinguishes it from get_product for a single ASIN. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs from the sibling.

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 routes single-ASIN lookups to get_product, giving a clear alternative. It does not cover other possible alternatives like list_keywords, but for the primary list-vs-get decision the guidance is sufficient.

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