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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the daily refresh cadence, that synthetic reimbursement placeholder SKUs are filtered by default, and that results are enriched with current titles.

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?

It front-loads the definition before the operational notes, and each sentence carries distinct information (definition, return shape, default filter, freshness, pairing). The include_synthetic_skus restatement is minor overlap with the schema, slightly diluting the concision.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to add purpose, freshness, defaults, and routing, all of which it does. An agent has enough to call this correctly; only a fuller exclusion rule would push it higher.

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 every parameter, including the include_synthetic_skus default and ob_date behavior. The description mostly restates the default-filtering rule and adds only the detail that rows are flagged with is_synthetic; useful but largely redundant against 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get suppressed/stranded listings') and immediately defines the concept ('items that are in FBA inventory but not buyable'), then says what it returns ('source suppression facts enriched with current listing titles'). It is clearly distinguishable from live-API siblings like get_buybox_status and get_fba_eligibility, which it names.

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 gives explicit pairing guidance ('For a live buyability cross-check on a specific ASIN, pair with get_buybox_status, get_listing_restrictions, and get_fba_eligibility') and distinguishes freshness by noting the table refreshes daily. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement, but the daily-vs-live contrast is a clear routing signal.

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