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

Despite annotations already establishing a safe read-only profile, the description adds substantial operational context: null monetary values when payment is unauthorized, item_price_availability/item_price_source checks, Pending FBA enrichment, the legacy/report-backed meaning of pallet_delivery_requirement 'unknown', and the asin filter being gross rather than units sold.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the routing sentence and grain definition come first, followed by field semantics and alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though the middle block of caveats is long enough that a reader must work to extract the calling rules.

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 an 11-parameter, optional-everything read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers scope, grain, default date behavior, filter semantics, data-quality caveats, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds real meaning the schema lacks — the 90-day default window for start_date/end_date, the gross-matching semantics of the asin filter, and the purchase_date (seller reporting) vs purchase_at/purchase_date_utc (UTC audit) distinction.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope ('inspect line items across many orders in one call'), then defines the exact grain (one row per order line item) and lists the fields returned. It explicitly names the three siblings it is not (get_sales_velocity, get_orders, get_sales_summary) and the conditions that select them.

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 routing: per-ASIN aggregates -> get_sales_velocity, order headers -> get_orders, account daily totals -> get_sales_summary. It also states a hard 'when-not' rule: omitting dates silently limits results to the trailing 90 days, so any prior period REQUIRES explicit start_date/end_date.

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