Create a Niche Dive

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

The description discloses multiple non-obvious behaviors: token spending with cost scaling, irreversibility, asynchronous execution with immediate return of diveId and estimatedCompletionDate, and the need to poll get_dive_status for the final nicheId. This significantly exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by adding depth and actionable details.

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 description is dense but purposeful, with each sentence carrying critical information: usage, cost/reversibility warning, async behavior, polling flow, and required fields. The warning emoji and sentence structure make it scannable. Some redundancy exists (min 2 appears in the schema and description), but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool is complex: asynchronous, destructive, costly, and without an output schema. The description covers the immediate response (diveId, estimatedCompletionDate), the polling requirement, the content of the success response (nicheId), and downstream use. It also explicitly states required parameters and the minimum for numberOfCompetitors. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter context: it links numberOfCompetitors to token cost, explains that confirm must be true after user approval, and clarifies that marketplace, asin, and numberOfCompetitors are required. This goes beyond individual property descriptions.

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 opens with 'Use this to start new niche research from a seed ASIN,' which clearly identifies the action (start), the resource (niche research), and the input (seed ASIN). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_niches or get_niche_keywords, which are retrieval operations, and create_rank_radar, which is a different creation action.

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 provides strong contextual guidance: it explains when to use the tool (starting niche research), the confirmation requirement before spending tokens, and the follow-up workflow (poll get_dive_status, then use nicheId with other tools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives as exclusions, so it falls 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.