AliExpress / Alibaba / Accio Product Import

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the risk implications of visibility_mode (backend_only vs sell_immediately), describes response formats for single vs batch imports, and clarifies idempotent behavior for re-imports with expired job IDs. While annotations cover basic safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand consequences.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers key usage scenarios. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the batch response explanation is somewhat verbose). Overall, most content earns its place by addressing distinct aspects of tool behavior.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about response formats, risk considerations, and sibling tool relationships. It compensates well for the lack of output schema by describing single vs batch response structures. The main gap is not explicitly covering all possible error conditions or rate limits.

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, the input schema already documents all 18 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions the source_url vs source_urls_json distinction and hints at rules_json structure, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter understanding that isn't already in the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Import product(s) from supplier URL(s) into the DSers import list and return a preview'), identifies the resources involved (products from AliExpress, Alibaba, Accio.com), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning when to use dsers_product_update_rules instead for rule updates.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it specifies to use dsers_product_update_rules for updating rules on existing imports, dsers_product_preview for individual details, and clarifies behavior for expired/lost job IDs. It also distinguishes between single and batch usage contexts.

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