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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the tri-state outcome model and the distinction between Amazon's blocking (ERROR) and non-blocking (WARNING) problems, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 sentences with zero filler: the core purpose and outcome states are front-loaded, followed by the usage condition. Both sentences earn their place.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies purpose, state semantics, error classification, and usage, so it is nearly complete; only the two optional parameters lack description-level coverage, which the schema handles adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for operation_id ('returned as operation_id by inbound write tools'), but says nothing about include_raw_rows or include_diagnostics, leaving those entirely to 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 and resource ('Status of an asynchronous FBA inbound operation') and enumerates the exact return states (SUCCESS, FAILED, IN_PROGRESS). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling inbound tools like get_fba_inbound_plan, get_fba_inbound_options, and get_fba_inbound_documents.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to resume a write that returned processing instead of re-submitting it,' which gives strong when-to-use context and an implicit alternative action (re-submitting). It doesn't name an alternative tool or a when-not condition, keeping it just 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.