Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds value by specifying what 'detailed info' entails (schedule, services, SERP data). However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid ui_id), rate limits, or cache behavior.

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?

Single, dense sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded action ('Get detailed info'), followed by scope ('for a specific...'), and precise content enumeration ('including...'). 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?

Adequate for a simple read-only getter with one parameter. Description compensates for missing output schema by listing return content types. Could improve by noting error cases (e.g., project not found) or authentication requirements.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage ('Project unique identifier'), establishing baseline 3. Description implicitly references the parameter via 'specific... project' but adds no additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond the schema.

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?

Excellent specificity: uses concrete verb 'Get', identifies resource as 'Listing Bureau project', and distinguishes from siblings via 'specific' (contrasting with lb_projects_list) and detailed content list 'schedule, services, and SERP data' (contrasting with lb_projects_get_stats).

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 implied usage through the word 'specific', suggesting single-project retrieval vs. bulk operations, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus lb_projects_list or lb_projects_get_stats. No 'when-not' or prerequisite guidance.

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