intelligence-api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the scoring algorithm (demand, rating gap, price) and return value format (0-100 score). However, it omits other behavioral traits like pagination behavior, result limits, or error handling (e.g., no results found).

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core action. Second sentence efficiently explains the return value semantics. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (2 flat parameters with full schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return value structure and scoring methodology. Minor gap regarding error states or pagination, but sufficient for the complexity level.

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 100%, with both 'keyword' and 'marketplace' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by keyword' but adds no additional semantic information (syntax constraints, format details) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score appropriate for high 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 specific action ('Search'), resource ('Amazon products'), and scope ('by keyword'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'amazon_product' (implied to be a lookup rather than search) and non-Amazon tools through explicit domain mention. It also clarifies what the tool returns (Opportunity Score), adding crucial context.

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 implies a use case through mentioning 'Opportunity Score' and its components (demand, rating gap, price), signaling this is for product research and market opportunity analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'amazon_product' or other siblings, and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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