gating_repricing_advice

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior is expected. The description does not contradict and adds context on output (product details and metrics). It does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and packs all essential information: output type, metrics, product details, and use cases. No redundant words; each 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (metrics, product brand/title/price/fulfillment). It lacks details on error handling or behavior when marketplace_id is omitted, but the default and description cover the common case. Overall sufficient for a recommendation tool.

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 description coverage is 50%; only marketplace_id has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any detail for the asin parameter, nor does it expand on marketplace_id beyond what the schema provides. It misses an opportunity to clarify parameter usage, especially for asin.

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 recommends ungate/arbitrage/avoid for an ASIN, with a 3-bullet rationale citing specific metrics. It differentiates from siblings like evaluate_asin_sourcing by focusing on gating and pricing advice, and includes explicit use cases ('should I try to ungate this?' / 'how should I price this?').

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 for the tool, indicating when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it compare to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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