Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so description appropriately focuses on return value structure ('per-day service volumes') and behavioral constraints (US-region limitation for SFB). Adds valuable context about what data fields (atc, sfb, pgv) are returned without contradicting safety 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?

Three efficient statements: purpose declaration, return value specification, and regional constraint. No redundant text. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter read operation. Despite lacking output schema, description explains return structure (per-day volumes with specific field codes). Regional limitation is documented. Domain terminology (atc, sfb, pgv) is specific but appropriate for the context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Project unique identifier'), the schema carries the burden. Description mentions 'Listing Bureau project' providing domain context for the ui_id parameter, but does not elaborate on format, validation, or acquisition of the identifier beyond schema documentation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' + resource 'schedule' + scope 'Listing Bureau project'. The naming convention (get vs siblings 'lb_schedule_set'/'lb_schedule_quick_set') clearly distinguishes this as a read operation versus write operations.

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 one usage constraint ('SFB is only available for US-region projects'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools lb_schedule_set or lb_schedule_quick_set. The distinction is implied by 'Get' versus 'Set' naming but not stated explicitly.

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