amazon_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of the metric and its interpretation, but does not disclose how the month parameter is applied, what constitutes 'item detail,' whether the operation is read-only, or the output structure. The description is partially transparent but lacks key behavioral details.

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, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main metric. The use of an em dash to clarify purpose adds value without redundancy. 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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description should provide clarity on both. It explains the metric's meaning but omits the month parameter behavior and the exact return value (e.g., a single number vs. a breakdown). Given the sibling tool list includes amazon_breakdown, more detail on how this complements it would be useful.

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 includes an optional 'month' parameter with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.

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's purpose: it measures Amazon spend in dollars that has item detail behind it. It also differentiates the tool from siblings like amazon_breakdown by framing it as a prerequisite check ('Check this before trusting an Amazon breakdown').

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 usage guidance: 'Check this before trusting an Amazon breakdown' establishes a clear workflow and when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to avoid using it, though the context implies it.

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