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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it will not fabricate tracking tags, unset tags yield URLs without tag= and tagConfigured=false. It doesn't say what happens on failed resolution, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and the critical constraint, followed by the tracking-tag caveat and the OpenAPI alias. Minor typo ('an buyUrl') and the OpenAPI pointer is filler, but nothing bloats it.

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 responsibly names the return fields (buyUrl, tagConfigured) and the two output modes. It leaves unspecified what desk-search results look like and what failure/empty resolution returns, which is the main remaining gap for a 7-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 71%, and the description reinforces the two required parameters with an emphasis the schema lacks ('ALWAYS pass'), plus explains that marketplace gates whether curated ASINs produce /dp links. role and budgetBand are left to their self-describing enums.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and enumerates the three accepted input forms (ASIN, pasted /dp/ URL, keywords) plus the output shape (buyUrl as /dp link or desk search). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_catalog or search_desk_gear, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives a hard usage rule — 'ALWAYS pass marketplace + locale' — and implicitly scopes usage to cases where the agent has an ASIN, URL, or keywords. There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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