extract_asin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes its input scope (URL formats) but does not disclose behavior like whether it fails on non-Amazon URLs, whether it returns null/error on missing ASIN, or error handling behavior. For a simple extraction tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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 sentences, zero waste. Everything stated is informative and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter extraction tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the purpose and accepted input formats. However, it doesn't mention the return format (just the ASIN) or failure behavior, though the absence of an output schema means these are minor gaps for a low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there's only one parameter that is self-descriptive ('Amazon product URL'). The description adds the format flexibility (short links, camelcamelcamel) which elaborates on accepted URL variants beyond the schema's single-line description, but doesn't add much beyond that.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Extract the ASIN from any Amazon URL format.' It also lists coverage of formats (full URLs, short links, camelcamelcamel URLs), which helps distinguish it somewhat from siblings like resolve_short_link. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_product_price or clarify the relationship with resolve_short_link.

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 implies usage ('any Amazon URL format') and implicitly contrasts with resolve_short_link by covering short links. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when one would prefer resolve_short_link over this tool for short links.

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