amazon_bestsellers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the primary output (affiliate link) and mentions a performance trait, but does not disclose potential error scenarios, whether the link is direct or requires affiliate setup, or any other edge-case behaviors. For a simple link-return tool, the core behavior is clear, but additional transparency is missing.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a rationale and a compact list of valid categories. No filler words. The structure is front-loaded and every element earns its place, including the long list which is necessary for parameter clarity.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the return type (affiliate link), the key parameters (category and country), and provides the valid category list. It could be more explicit about the link format or behavior for invalid inputs, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by listing all valid categories, which the schema only gives examples of (e.g., 'elektronik', 'bücher'). This helps the agent know the exact accepted values, beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return an affiliate link to the Amazon bestseller list for a specific category and country.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like amazon_search or amazon_product_link by focusing on bestseller lists and affiliate links.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool: 'Bestseller links consistently outperform generic search links in click-through and conversion rates.' This implies a preference over generic search, but it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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