amazon ads get sd product ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: offset-based pagination rather than a cursor, conservative partial-page marking, and an explicit warning that these records are not performance metrics (routing reporting needs to create_report).

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, precondition, pagination quirk, and output-scope caveat. No filler and the core identity is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers eligibility, pagination semantics and the non-metrics caveat. Only the missed explicit routing to the Sponsored Products sibling keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with count, accountId and startIndex all documented including the 'use nextStartIndex from the previous page' hint. The description reinforces the startIndex-not-cursor point but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one page of Sponsored Display product ads'), and the 'Sponsored Display' qualifier separates it from the Sponsored Products sibling amazon_ads_get_product_ads. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied by the ad-product prefix rather than spelled out.

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?

'Requires Display eligibility' gives a real precondition for use, which is more than most sibling tools offer. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over amazon_ads_get_product_ads or amazon_ads_get_sd_creatives, and no exclusion guidance.

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