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

Annotations only cover readOnly/non-destructive; the description goes far beyond them, disclosing the async state machine (IN_QUEUE/IN_PROGRESS/DONE), the exact outcome fields returned (summary, errors_count, warnings_count, issues_sample, issues_note), the not_found behavior with hint for invalid ids, and the warning-vs-error semantic trap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then async semantics, outcome fields, and scope restriction — every sentence carries content. It is dense and long for a 3-parameter tool, but the return-field enumeration is warranted given there is no output schema.

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 fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and interpreting them (summary counts, issues_sample/issues_note relationship). Combined with the not_found edge case and the alternative path for submissionIds, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents feed_id, wait and account_id; the description's guidance on feed_id provenance largely duplicates the schema's own feed_id description. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so 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+resource (check feed processing status) and immediately disambiguates it from sibling concepts, e.g. that a submissionId is NOT a feed and belongs to get_listing instead. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and what it is not for.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (feed_id from bulk_* / submit_listings_feed), when-not-to (submissionIds from update_listing/create_listing/delete_listing), the alternative for the excluded case (get_listing by sku after ~15 min), and even polling guidance (call again later while IN_QUEUE/IN_PROGRESS). Nothing is left to inference.

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