asin_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals return fields (total score, tier, dimension breakdown, data completeness, score confidence), supported scoring versions with defaults, and the effect of include_detail. This goes beyond the schema and gives useful context.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose, subsequent sentences add return values, version options, and a clear usage directive. No word is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description does a thorough job of explaining return values, version options, and detail flag behavior. It does not mention batch alternatives or error handling, but for a single-ASIN scoring operation it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_detail and scoring_version meaningfully, but traffic_pages is left completely unexplained and ASIN format is not clarified. This is only partial compensation for 4 parameters.

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 'Score a single ASIN on nine dimensions' and 'Evaluating a specific ASIN's viability', giving a specific verb and resource. The word 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling asin_score_batch, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: Evaluating a specific ASIN's viability', which is clear context for when to use. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, though the sibling list implies batch vs single.

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