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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a detailed output contract: viability qualifier, specific move, economics, named risks, and validation steps, plus an expectation-setting note ('credible lead generator, not get-rich advice'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core behavior and then efficiently enumerates the output components. It is dense but every clause adds value; the 'Scout+' tag is minor branding but not harmful.

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 compensates well by enumerating return contents and risk categories. Combined with the input schema, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. It stops short of covering edge cases or failure behavior, but the essential contract is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the ASIN is the core input but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precisely states what the tool does: given an Amazon ASIN, it diagnoses the business model, finds supplier/wholesale/arbitrage matches, and returns a sourcing viability assessment. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from generic search or evaluation tools.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have an Amazon ASIN and want a sourcing opportunity read. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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