top_sourcing_picks

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description describing a search operation. The description does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey, such as rate limits or data freshness, so it does not add significant 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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, followed by use-case examples and expected output format. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 description gives a good high-level overview and mentions output fields, but with 30 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on many parameters and does not explicitly exclude alternative tools. For its complexity, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaning for several key parameters (e.g., max/min retail price, category, brand, exclude filters) beyond the schema, but 30 parameters exist with only 23% schema coverage. Many parameters (like min_velocity_score, scope, product_title_contains) are not explained in the description, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 finds top sourcing-pick ASINs across the entire catalog with optional filters, and provides example user queries. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for cross-cutting questions without a named entity, but could more explicitly differentiate from similar tools like find_sourcing_opportunities.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool ('when user asks top sourcing picks...') and implies not for named entities. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives, limiting its guidance among many sibling tools.

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