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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result caps (≤10 events, ≤10 sellers), the 0-100 score range, the 10%-below-usual price-drop definition, and the exact fields each event carries.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the rest is a single sprawling sentence with a nested definition of a MAP event. The heavy parenthetical earns some of its length by defining the event, yet the overall structure is dense and hard to scan.

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?

For a 24-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well on return contents but leaves the parameter surface largely undocumented. It also never clarifies that zero parameters are required or that at least one of asin/brand must be supplied, a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 33% across 24 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate but does not. Numerous filters (min/max_price, min/max_count, max_listed_price, the fulfillment percentage bounds, title/brand contains variants) are unexplained in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('risk + protection assessment for an ASIN or brand') and enumerates the outputs (composite score, MAP events, unauthorized sellers, recommended actions). It is much more concrete than a bare name, though it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like brand_under_attack, map_violations_today, or unauthorized_sellers.

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?

Offers two example prompts ('flag risk events on my brand', 'is this ASIN risky?') that imply when to reach for it. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never routes the agent away from the near-identical sibling tools, leaving overlap unresolved.

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