get_ad_eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it is a 'direct API read' (implying no side effects) and an 'introspection stub' (implying it may not be fully functional). However, it does not detail what happens when called (e.g., error or mock response).

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but slightly terse; the technical note about introspection stub could be rephrased for clarity. Still, no waste.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It explains the core function but does not elaborate on what 'eligibility for ad types' means, what ad types exist, or the output format. Adequate for a stub but incomplete for a fully functional tool.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; it mentions ASIN but the schema already describes it.

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 states the verb 'Check', the resource 'ASIN eligibility', and the domain 'ad types'. It also distinguishes itself by noting that it is a hosted endpoint (direct API read) and an introspection stub, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_fba_eligibility.

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 context that the tool is a stub and not the actual hosted endpoint, implying limited functionality but does not explicitly state when to use it or suggest alternatives. Some guidance is implied but not fully developed.

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