asin_buybox_history

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

The disclosure of return values (per-week breakdown, monthly seller count series, seller_trend label, product details) adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the behavioral description is consistent with a read-only tool and provides meaningful transparency.

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 information-dense but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the core purpose and then details return values and use cases. Every sentence adds value, though slight tightening could improve conciseness.

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 27 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview of the main outputs and usage context. It covers the essential return structure and common query intents, but could be more complete by addressing more filter parameters or error conditions.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters (asin, since_weeks, marketplace_id) and describes derived output fields not in the schema (e.g., seller_count_monthly, seller_trend). However, many filter parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, limiting the value added.

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 shows which sellers have been winning the buybox for an ASIN over time and how the competing-seller pool changes month over month. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the detailed example queries effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like brand_buybox_trajectory or buybox_loss_alert.

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 use cases with example user queries, such as 'who has been winning buybox on this ASIN' or 'is the seller pool stable or volatile'. It does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand applicability.

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