get_seller_products

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful operational behavior: each page costs 1 credit, starting with one page is advised, and sort_by can surface relevant products. It also reveals that the response includes refinement filters and that exclude_refinements can shrink payload size. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short paragraphs are dense but not bloated: output scope, when to use, and key operational caveats each get one block. The most important disambiguation and cost warning appear early, and no sentence merely restates the schema.

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 broad catalog tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents, refinement filters, credit pricing, page limits, seller_id/url exclusivity, and sort options. Minor gaps like page size or specific error behavior are not critical given schema and annotations, but a fully complete description might state how many products are returned per page.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that one must provide EITHER seller_id OR url (never both), giving concrete sort_by enum examples, and noting the per-page credit cost tied to max_page. This raises it above the baseline without duplicating schema text.

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 opens with a specific action ('Extract a seller's full product catalog') and enumerates exact data fields (ASIN, brand, category, price, Prime, variants, rating) plus refinement filters. It is clearly distinct from get_seller_profile, which the description explicitly names as the reputation/legal-identity sibling.

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 states concrete use cases (competitor inventory analysis, stock monitoring, pricing-strategy research) and gives an explicit exclusion: for legal identity or reputation, use get_seller_profile. It also gives tactical guidance about page credits and sort_by, so an agent knows when and how to select it.

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