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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the asynchronous nature, the cost on submit ($0.001-$0.0015), that fetching is free, and the return of a task id. It does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false) and provides additional cost and workflow details.

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 concise, with about five sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It includes essential operational details (cost, async behavior) without unnecessary fluff. Well-structured and efficient.

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 submit tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, how to identify the product, the async flow, cost, and the matching fetch tool. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are not essential for the primary use case.

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?

The schema already has detailed descriptions for each field inside the body array, so the schema carries most of the parameter documentation. The description adds a useful hint about which fields to use (product_id, gid, data_docid) for identification, but does not explain the body structure itself. Since the top-level 'body' parameter has no description, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 clearly states the verb 'queues' and the resource 'reviews of one Google Shopping product', and explicitly names the retrieval tool, distinguishing it from other submit tools for different data types (products, sellers, asin). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 provides clear guidance on how to identify the product (using product_id plus gid or data_docid) and explains the asynchronous flow, including which fetch tool to use afterward. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative submit tools, but the purpose and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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