get_amazon_alexa_questions

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral disclosure: point costs (5 for extraction, +20 per answered region, 0/5/25/45 totals), zero cost for valid no-question results and service failures, and 5 points for an invalid ASIN. It does not cover authentication mechanics, rate limits, or failure/return shape, so it falls short of full transparency for a scraping tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cost model compressed into a single clause. The cost parenthetical is dense but earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 a 5-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and cost but omits the return structure (what the question/answer payload looks like) and any auth prerequisites beyond 'logged-in'. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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%, and the schema already explains url/asin duality, the region enum semantics, concurrency bounds, and includeAnswers behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (Alexa/Rufus preset-question regions) scoped to a logged-in Amazon PDP, plus the optional answer-generation behavior. It is very clear about what it does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling search_amazon_alexa or get_amazon_reviews, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool operates on a logged-in Amazon PDP and the answering step is optional. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or which sibling to pick for a related question, so the agent gets context but no routing guidance.

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