get_fba_reimbursements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('gets') and describes the data returned, which is transparent. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or data volume considerations, leaving some gaps.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary function, and the second adds context on usefulness. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and output. It covers the key aspects of what the tool does and what information it provides. Slight improvement could be made by noting the format or pagination, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (startDate, endDate) with format YYYY-MM-DD, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves FBA reimbursements for lost, damaged, or returned inventory within a date range. It specifies the output includes reimbursement amounts, reasons, and affected products, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_fba_inventory_details or get_fba_fee_estimates.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for tracking Amazon credits for inventory issues', which implies when to use it, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks. The context of usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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