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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth precondition (USER'S OWN Keepa key, must be connected), the 100-result cap, the currency convention, and the return shape. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior and what happens on the 'page' parameter, so it isn't exhaustive for a 23-param, key-dependent tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and capped output, then organized into filters, drop logic, category, and return value. Efficient for the amount of ground covered, though it spends lines on examples (drop_30d) while ignoring many params.

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?

It supplies the return shape ({count, asins[]}) and the key-prerequisite, which is valuable given no output schema. But for a 23-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the bulk of parameter meaning unexplained, so it is only partially 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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only semantic source, yet it explains only the drop_* filters, drop_type values, category, and marketplace. The majority of parameters (brand, max_bsr, min_rating, seller/price min-max pairs, exclude_word, amazon_not_on_listing, page) are left entirely undefined, so the agent cannot reliably use most filters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Amazon via Keepa's Product Finder and return the matching ASINs') and bounds the output ('up to 100'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming analyse_product for drilling into results, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: 'Provide at least one filter', 'call get_keepa_key_status first', and 'analyse specific ones with analyse_product'. It clearly frames the workflow but doesn't contrast against sibling searchers like search_by_title or lookup_by_ean, leaving some alternative-selection inference to the agent.

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