Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true (safe retries). Description adds valuable behavioral context: the semantic mapping of boolean values (pause/resume) and the current implementation limitation ('Currently supports'), indicating this is a partial update capability. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads purpose and capability; second sentence provides the sibling distinction. 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?

For a simple 2-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral scope, sibling alternatives, and the idempotentHint annotation covers safety. No gaps remain for this complexity level.

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%, with parameters fully documented ('Project unique identifier', 'Set active status (true=resume, false=pause)'). Description reinforces the pause/resume semantics but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

States specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Listing Bureau project'), clearly defining scope as 'toggling the active status (pause/resume)'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool lb_projects_archive by stating that archiving requires a different tool.

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 alternative: 'To archive a project, use lb_projects_archive instead.' Also implies usage constraints with 'Currently supports toggling the active status,' guiding users away from attempting other update operations.

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