Listing Bureau - Amazon Organic Ranking

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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent hints; description reinforces this with 'Replaces any existing schedule.' Adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: regional execution rate differences (lower outside US) and clarifies that SFB is US-only despite the tool accepting the parameter globally.

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?

Perfect information density. Front-loaded with core action ('Set the full per-day schedule'), followed by critical warning ('Replaces any existing'), then structural details and constraints. No redundant words; every sentence 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?

Comprehensive for a complex nested-object tool with destructive behavior. Covers domain constraints (regional limitations), data structure, and volume limits. Missing explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid project ID from lb_projects_list) or authentication requirements, though these may be implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by contextualizing the abbreviations (atc, sfb, pgv) as 'volumes,' explaining the entry structure ('each entry represents one day'), and emphasizing the complete replacement nature of the schedule parameter.

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: 'Set' (verb), 'full per-day schedule' (scope), 'Listing Bureau project' (resource). The 'full' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling lb_schedule_quick_set, while 'Replaces any existing schedule' clarifies the destructive update semantics.

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 critical constraints: max 365 entries, regional restrictions (SFB US-only), and warns that it 'Replaces any existing schedule.' Deduction for not explicitly contrasting with lb_schedule_quick_set or mentioning prerequisite steps like retrieving current schedule first.

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