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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond them: it does not explain that this is an asynchronous job submission requiring later polling via scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result, nor what side effects or costs the destructive write entails.

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 first sentence is a long, repetitive keyword-stuffing block ('Amazon 全球产品详情、Amazon 全球商品详情、Amazon 全球产品信息、全球商品信息...') that duplicates concepts and buries the actual purpose. The useful statement about submitting a Builder task and the four modes is deferred to the second sentence instead of being front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and with 12 parameters and 4 operating modes this is a fairly complex tool. The description covers purpose and modes adequately and the schema carries all parameter detail, but it omits the async task workflow (submit here, then check scraper_task_status / scraper_task_result), which is the key context an agent needs to use the tool end-to-end.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions are rich (documenting which spider_id each param applies to, defaults, formats). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The second sentence states a concrete verb+resource: submit an Amazon global product-detail collection Builder task, and enumerates the four supported spider modes (by-url, by-category-url, by-keywords, by-keywords-brand). It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling amazon_product / amazon_product_list tools, so the 'global' scope is left for the agent to infer.

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 first sentence provides trigger conditions (product detail/info, URL, category URL, keyword search combined with verbs like collect/scrape/crawl/fetch), which is a form of when-to-use guidance. However, it is essentially a keyword-matching list with no exclusions and no mention of alternatives (e.g. when to prefer amazon_product or the scraper_task_* follow-ups), so usage is only implied rather than decided.

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