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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: the 90-day window, the exclusion of API-originated changes, the fact that the actor is not returned, and the omission of Sponsored Display. These disclosures directly affect whether an agent should trust an empty result.

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 highest-value caveat (typical emptiness for agent-managed accounts) is front-loaded, with alternatives and known gaps following in descending importance. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: source scope, freshness window, expected emptiness, missing fields, and sibling routing. Nothing material is left unstated.

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% across all 15 parameters, including defaults and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as date-bound defaults or pagination behavior, 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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns Amazon console change-history events) and scopes it to Sponsored Products and Sponsored Brands via the Seller Central History tab. It explicitly names the sibling tools get_action_history and get_campaign_snapshots and the conditions that select each, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (console history, last 90 days), when-NOT (API or agentcentral changes never appear here, so it is typically empty for agent-managed accounts), and names two concrete alternatives with the exact conditions that select them (get_action_history for agentcentral changes, get_campaign_snapshots view=changes for any source).

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