List Indexing-Issue Alerts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: default active status, 30-day window, filter semantics (e.g., updatedSince for incremental polling), and the fact that dismissed alerts are excluded. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but the read-only safety is already disclosed by annotations and the description reinforces safe usage.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and efficiently packs in scope, defaults, filters, return fields, and pagination metadata without fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose and adds concrete detail, making it well-structured for an agent.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the fields in each response and pagination metadata. It fully covers purpose, behavior, filter options, and result structure, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with detailed descriptions for every parameter. The description adds value by explaining defaults (active, 30 days) and the incremental polling use case for updatedSince, but the schema already carries most parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('indexing-issue alerts') and the action ('Retrieves a paginated list'), and explains what an alert represents (ASIN no longer indexed for tracked keywords). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_blind_spend_alerts by specifying the issue type.

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 opening 'Use this to find products that may have lost search visibility' gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains default behavior (active alerts, last 30 days) and how to filter or paginate, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other alert types.

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