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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, but the description adds critical operational context beyond them: it reports REJECTED documents (work done but never live, fastest recovery) and DRAFT/SUBMITTED states, and mandates declaring two limits to the user — that it only measures THIS seller's A+ documents and that A+ is per-marketplace. These constraints materially affect how results should be interpreted.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the description is a dense, single-paragraph block with parentheticals and multiple caveats packed together, reducing scannability. Every sentence carries substantive information (no filler), but structure could be improved for readability.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and a read-only audit of non-trivial scope, the description covers: what is returned (coverage with gaps ordered by commercial weight, plus REJECTED/DRAFT/SUBMITTED flags), the seller-scoped and per-marketplace limitations that must be disclosed, and the absence of write support. This is complete for an agent to call and interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the four parameters (top_n, account_id, max_catalog, max_documents) is already documented. The description adds contextual meaning for account_id by explaining the outpost/marketplace model, but does not elaborate on top_n, max_catalog, or max_documents beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: audits A+ Content coverage across the catalog, distinguishing ASINs with APPROVED (customer-visible) A+ documents from those without. It further differentiates from siblings like list_aplus_documents (raw listing) and get_aplus_document (single doc) by framing this as a coverage/gap audit ordered by commercial weight.

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 states when to use it (to find which selling pages lack A+, prioritizing by 30-day units sold), and gives clear when-not/caveat guidance: the A+ is per-marketplace (IT/DE/FR/ES are distinct documents, audit one outpost at a time), and creation/modification via API is NOT implemented — corrections must be made in Seller Central. This routes the agent away from expecting write capability.

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