get_sponsored_ads_entities_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation ('direct API read') and that locally it is an 'introspection stub', meaning it will not actually fetch data. This transparently sets expectations about behavior, though it omits details on rate limits or authentication.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key limitation. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 7 optional parameters, a rich set of sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose and stub limitation but lacks details on the output structure, the differences between SP/SB/SD entities, or how to effectively use the parameters. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter including a short description. The tool description adds no further parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 it is a 'direct API read' for 'Live SP/SB/SD entity state from Amazon', specifying the verb (read), resource (entity state), and scope (SP/SB/SD). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_sp_entities_live, which likely covers only SP, by explicitly including SB and SD.

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 notes that the tool is a 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub', providing context that it works only on the hosted endpoint and is non-functional on local. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_sp_entities_live or other read tools, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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