risk_assessment

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

The description details the return values: composite risk score (0-100), recent MAP violation events (≤10 with details), unauthorized seller list (≤10), and recommended actions (1-3). It also notes the lookback window for MAP events defaults to 30 days. The annotation readOnlyHint: true confirms it is a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 plus a use-case snippet, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and what it returns. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it is well-sized and front-loaded with key 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 complexity (24 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core returns but does not explain how to use the many filter parameters. The use-case snippet helps but is insufficient for complete guidance. The agent may struggle with advanced filtering without more parameter semantics.

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 24 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate. It mentions asin, brand, and days in context, but many filter parameters (e.g., min_count, buybox_seller, product_brand_contains) lack explanation. The description provides no additional semantics for the majority of parameters, relying on the schema which is incomplete.

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 it assesses risk and protection for an ASIN or brand, returning a composite score, MAP violations, unauthorized sellers, and recommendations. It provides specific use-case prompts like 'flag risk events on my brand' or 'is this ASIN risky?', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., map_violations_today, unauthorized_sellers).

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 gives example prompts for when to use the tool, such as 'flag risk events on my brand' or 'is this ASIN risky?', which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like map_violations_today or unauthorized_sellers that might be more specific for certain queries.

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