Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations declare idempotency (idempotentHint: true), and the description adds the validation constraint that at least one field must be provided, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permission requirements or what constitutes a successful response.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the operation and target fields, the second states the critical constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple 3-parameter input schema with full coverage and the idempotency annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by mentioning the return value or success behavior, but it adequately covers the essential invocation constraints.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, the description adds crucial semantic information that the schema lacks: the validation rule that at least one of the three optional parameters must be provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Listing Bureau account profile') and explicitly lists the fields being operated on, clearly distinguishing this from sibling read operations like lb_account_get.

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 critical usage constraint ('At least one field required') which prevents invalid invocations, but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like lb_account_get.

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