amazon_promo_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema by noting that the output is 'ready-to-publish' and 'includes mandatory affiliate disclosure text,' which is important for compliance. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, limitations, or request-specific behaviors, so it is not a 5.

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 concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence immediately states the primary purpose, and the second efficiently lists supported formats and languages. It earns its place without 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?

The description provides a solid overall picture for a content-generation tool: what it produces, the output formats, languages, and the inclusion of disclosure text. It lacks details about the exact output structure, but there is no output schema, so the description does what is reasonably expected. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining when to choose this over sibling tools, but that is more of a usage guideline gap.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond the platform list and language list, which are also present in the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('ready-to-publish promotional content for Amazon products with embedded affiliate links'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like amazon_search or amazon_deals by focusing on content creation rather than search or deal discovery.

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 when to use the tool (when promotional content is needed) and provides context about supported platforms and languages, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since sibling tools exist, a clear 'use this instead of X' statement would be helpful, but the context is still unambiguous.

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