Amazon

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful operational context: credit costs, failures are free, pagination cursors, and free cached responses via max_age_days. It still does not describe rate limits or exact return fields, but it is substantially more transparent than the annotations alone.

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 its purpose, then uses structured instructions and a resource bullet. Most sentences carry useful calling, cost, paging, or caching information, though some generic wrapper wording is still present.

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 generic resource-dispatch tool with one supported resource, rich schema descriptions, and strong annotations, the description covers routing, argument placement, cost, paging, and caching. It omits deeper return-shape and authentication details, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, cursor, params, resource, and max_age_days. The description adds the resource-specific mapping shop(url), notes the 1-credit cost and paging behavior, and repeats cursor/cache semantics. With the schema doing most of the documentation work, this is an appropriate baseline-to-slightly-enhanced score.

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 that this tool returns Amazon product data and narrows the single supported resource to shop(url): Amazon storefront products. That is specific enough to distinguish it from other platform tools, though the top-level name 'amazon' is broad and the verb 'fetch/list' is only implied.

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 explains the calling pattern: choose a resource, pass its parameters top-level, use params for extras, reuse cursor, and use max_age_days for cached data. However, it does not say when to use this Amazon tool versus search, call_endpoint, describe, or the other platform siblings.

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