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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: basic auth needs no business OAuth scope, results do not reserve capacity or guarantee a later write, NOT_APPLICABLE is not unlimited and UNAVAILABLE is not zero, business lists exclude package quotas, and paused records don't consume capacity. This is exactly the interpretive context a consumption/quota tool needs.

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 core purpose and usage triggers are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The trailing stream of caveats (NOT_APPLICABLE/UNAVAILABLE, business lists, dedup, paused records) is dense and slightly telegraphic, but none of it is wasted filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return shapes; instead it supplies the missing interpretation rules for sentinel values and capacity accounting. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly read this tool is absent.

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 100% with per-enum oneOf descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining deduplication across account shops and parent ASINs, that paused records don't consume capacity, and that resources are unaffected by business store filters. It does repeat the omit-for-all and max-50 rules already present in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Queries current account-wide package limits, usage and remaining capacity'), which immediately distinguishes it from the query_* analytics siblings that return business metrics. Scope (account-wide, not business-filtered) is explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('when asked about quota or before planning capacity-consuming changes'), explains how to widen scope ('Omit resources for all resources'), and routes keyword-specific questions via KEYWORD_RANK_TRACKING_KEYWORDS. An agent knows both when to call it and how to configure it.

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