list_processing_profiles

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, externally-scoped read, so the description's main added value is disclosing the returned fields. It says nothing about whether multiple profiles can come back, per-shop scoping, or empty-result behavior. Adequate but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the downstream purpose trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool this covers identity, return shape sketch, and motivation. The only gap is that with no output schema, a fuller account of the response (cardinality, ordering, which profile is default) would be needed for full completeness.

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 zero parameters there is nothing to disambiguate, so the baseline is high. The description goes slightly further by naming the payload fields an agent should expect, which is useful given no output schema exists.

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?

Names a specific resource ('processing profiles') and the two fields it returns (readiness_state_id + processing days), which lets an agent tell it apart from the shipping/listings siblings. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'needed for physical listings' implies the downstream use (creating/configuring physical listings), giving an agent a rough when-to-use cue. It stops short of stating prerequisites, ordering, or what to call instead if the agent needs digital-listing settings.

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