Create an Amazon listing plan with title, bullets, backend keywords, image checklist, and compliance checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | Product fields such as title, brand, sku, category, features, dimensions. | |
| keywords | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description says 'Create' implying a write operation, but annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, contradicting the description. Additionally, no behavioral details beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of what happens to the plan, if it's saved). Annotation contradiction flag triggered.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and key elements. No redundant words, efficient and clear.
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 should explain return values or outcomes. The tool creates a 'plan', but there's no info on what is returned or how the plan is used. Also, the read-only annotation contradicts the 'Create' verb, creating confusion.
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 covers parameters with descriptions, but the 'product' object's nested fields lack structure. The description adds value by listing example fields (title, brand, sku, category, features, dimensions), compensating for the schema's lack of detail on nested properties.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'Amazon listing plan', and lists key components (title, bullets, keywords, checklist, compliance). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'walmart_listing_manager' and 'shopify_product_manager'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., blog_generator vs. get_blog_post), but there is overlap among some content validation tools (csv_cleaner, duplicate_sku_finder, inventory_checker, product_catalog_validator) which could cause confusion. Also, compare_services and search_services serve similar functions.
Tool names mix styles: some use noun_verb (amazon_listing_manager), others verb_noun (compare_services), and there are multiple prefixes like get_, search_, list_. This inconsistency may hinder an agent's ability to predict tool names.
With 35 tools, the set is large and covers many subdomains. This could overwhelm an agent, making selection challenging. A more focused subset would improve coherence.
The tools cover a broad range of ecommerce operations: listing management for multiple platforms, content generation, data validation, research, and reporting. However, missing update/delete capabilities and some platform interactions limit full lifecycle coverage.
