get_seller_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 'Costs 1 credit' discloses a resource-consumption trait, and 'Provide EITHER seller_id OR url — never both' discloses an input-exclusivity rule. It stops short of describing failure/error behavior, but with strong annotation coverage the bar is lower.

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 well-organized into three focused paragraphs: what it returns, when to use it, and invocation constraints/cost. The purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary — the positioning line 'This is the supplier-verification and brand-protection tool' partially restates the opening — but every other sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return content (legal name, address, feedback trends over specific windows). It covers use cases, sibling routing, parameter exclusivity, workflow, and cost. Remaining gaps are minor: it doesn't specify what happens if neither parameter is provided or how the 'never both' rule is enforced, but with 0 required parameters and read-only annotations, the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the mutual-exclusion relationship between seller_id and url ('never both'), which the schema does not encode as a constraint. It also explains how to obtain a seller_id via get_product_offers, complementing the schema's format guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unmask') with a clear resource (Amazon merchant) and enumerates concrete outputs: legal business name, registered business address, and feedback trends over 30/90/365 days and lifetime. It further differentiates itself from siblings by declaring itself 'the supplier-verification and brand-protection tool' and explicitly contrasting with get_seller_products and get_seller_feedback.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrasings ('who is this seller?', 'is this merchant legitimate?') and compliance/invoicing scenarios. It names specific alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'To see WHAT the seller sells, use get_seller_products. To read individual buyer reviews about the seller, use get_seller_feedback.' It also gives a workflow hint to discover a seller via get_product_offers first.

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