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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ranked by estimated revenue at stake, each flagged ASIN includes brand/title/price/fulfillment, and without an authorized list it flags any third-party buy-box holder. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the main purpose and ranking rationale, then adds the prerequisite and output shape in a compact way. Each sentence contributes, though it is slightly dense for a tool with 26 parameters.

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?

The core call path, prerequisite, and basic result shape are covered, making it minimally viable. However, with 26 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the lack of detail on filters and marketplace parameter semantics is a clear gap.

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 only 27% across 26 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the brand and authorized_sellers behavior, but most filter parameters such as price, fulfillment, buybox holder, marketplace, and revenue-at-stake remain unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: find ASINs where a brand you own has lost the buy box to an unauthorized seller, ranked by estimated revenue at stake. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like operator_buybox_losses and brand_buybox_trajectory by focusing on brand ownership and authorized-seller scope.

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 gives explicit usage triggers such as 'where am I losing the buy box on <brand>' and states a key prerequisite: save your authorized list first for precise flagging, with fallback behavior if not saved. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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