get_fba_eligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It labels the tool as a 'direct API read' (read-only) and warns that the local server is a 'stub,' indicating limited functionality. This adds valuable context beyond the input schema.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states purpose, the second provides hosting context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, behavior with multiple parameters, or pagination. The stub warning partially compensates, but completeness is low.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or highlight critical parameters, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Check'), resource ('FBA eligibility'), and scope ('per ASIN'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ad_eligibility. The prefix '[Inventory / direct API read]' further clarifies it's a read-only inventory operation.

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 mentions 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub,' which warns about limited local functionality but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_inventory_by_fulfillment_center, or when not to use it.

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