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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety claims. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: pagination behavior, what fields come back, and the important semantic that an unfinished report is 'queued, not missing' rather than absent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by the queued-status caveat and the sibling routing hint. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned. It covers pagination, status semantics, safety, and where to go for details, leaving no material ambiguity for an agent calling this list tool.

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 fully documented with ranges, defaults, and cursor usage. The description reinforces pagination with 'one page at a time' but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('Returns this account's Reverse ASIN reports'), adds pagination scope, and enumerates the returned fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_reverse_report by directing agents there for phrases.

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 clearly implies this is the listing/discovery step and names get_reverse_report with the report_id handoff as the alternative for phrase-level detail. It lacks an explicit 'use this when... / do not use when...' statement, but the routing is unambiguous.

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