Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations only indicate non-idempotency (idempotentHint: false). The description adds crucial behavioral context: the 5-report limit per order and specific retry prohibitions on limit errors. This discloses rate-limiting behavior not evident from the annotation alone.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. The first sentence states purpose; the second delivers critical operational constraints without waste. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and error-handling behavior. Slight deduction for not describing success state or return value implications, though this is partially mitigated by the straightforward nature of the operation.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the character limit constraint ('1-1000 characters') already defined in the schema's minLength/maxLength, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the structured definition.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and clear resource ('an issue with a Listing Bureau order'), precisely defining the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lb_orders_get (retrieval) and lb_feedback_submit (general feedback vs. specific issues).

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 operational constraints: 'Maximum 5 issue reports per order' defines a usage limit, and 'do not retry if you receive a limit error' gives clear when-not guidance. Lacks explicit differentiation from lb_feedback_submit, preventing a perfect score.

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