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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return shape (buyUrl + trackingTag) and reveals affiliate-tag behavior (tag sw-fitness-20 in the schema text), which is meaningful context. However it says nothing about failure modes (unresolvable ASIN/keywords), whether tracking is always applied, or which storefront wins for keyword-only input.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and input forms, followed by the storefront defaulting rule. No filler and nothing restated from the tool name.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more work; it names the return fields and the storefront resolution logic, which covers the happy path. It falls short on the two undocumented enum parameters and on what happens when resolution fails, leaving real gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. It partially covers url/asin/keywords by naming them as accepted inputs and explains marketplace/country/locale precedence, but the 'goal' (run/lift/yoga) and 'level' (starter/building/serious) enums are left completely unexplained in both schema and description — an agent cannot infer their meaning or whether they are required for keyword resolution.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Resolve") with three named input forms (ASIN, Amazon URL, keywords) and a concrete output (buyUrl + trackingTag). An agent can tell this is a resolution/link-building tool rather than a search tool, though it never names the sibling tools (search_gear, browse_catalog) it must be distinguished from.

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 marketplace defaulting chain (en-US → amazon.com, else amazon.se) gives useful invocation context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_gear or browse_catalog, and no preconditions or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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