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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that shipment detail returns two distinct identifiers, that view=boxes carries case dimensions/weights/units, and that Seller Central saved templates are not API-readable, which shapes how an agent should source defaults.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining sentences each earn their place by covering views, identifiers, reuse, and alternatives. It is dense but not padded; slightly more length than strictly necessary for a summary line.

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, annotations supplying the safety profile, and 100% parameter coverage, the description fills the remaining gaps: it covers all five view modes, the two-identifier return for shipments, and the repeat-shipment reuse pattern. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining semantics the enum descriptions don't: what view=summary yields in create_fba_inbound_plan input shape, what view=boxes carries, and how shipment_id scopes results, adding practical meaning to the enum values.

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 and resource (live FBA inbound plan state), pins the backing API and version, and enumerates exactly what each view returns (plans, summary, items, boxes, pallets, shipments). It distinguishes itself from the materialized-progress siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

It routes the agent explicitly: use get_inbound_shipments and get_shipment_receiving_status for materialized receiving progress, and use this tool's summary/boxes views for reusable defaults on repeat shipments. Context is clear but there is no explicit 'when not to use' for the listing mode beyond the sibling redirect.

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