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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds useful context that the data comes 'from snapshots' and is 'ranked', but says nothing about snapshot freshness, whether output is paginated, or the cost of pulling raw rows (include_raw_rows defaults true).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and the sources of signal. It could be slightly tighter and omits any usage sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and all 8 params optional/defaulted, the description needn't explain returns, and annotations cover safety. However, it omits the relationship to get_listing_quality and get_suppressed_listings and offers no guidance on snapshot_date behavior, which matters for a snapshot-driven 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters and their defaults, hitting the baseline of 3. The enumerated signal categories loosely mirror the cleanup_focus enum, adding marginal mapping value, but the description supplies no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('ranked listing quality signals from snapshots') and enumerates five concrete signal categories (Amazon errors, warnings, missing core content, offer/fulfillment gaps, thin content). It is clearly distinguishable in content from generic listing tools, though it never names the closest siblings (get_listing_quality, get_suppressed_listings) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives despite a crowded listing/quality sibling set. An agent must infer that this is the cleanup-triage tool from its name and signals alone.

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