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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that it never returns the key itself, plus the follow-up action on a negative result. It omits auth requirements or rate-limit behavior, but for a trivial boolean status check this is strong coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the conditional action and the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, the recommended follow-up action, and the return constraint (no key returned). It is essentially complete, though a note on the exact return shape would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or undermines the empty schema.

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 resource and check: whether the user has connected their own Keepa API key. It also anchors the purpose by noting the key is needed for find_products, which distinguishes it from the many other get_* status/list siblings. The verb is implicit ("Whether...") rather than an explicit action, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a clear conditional action: if not connected, tell the user to add the key in Sorsa Settings, and implies the tool is a prerequisite for find_products. It does not explicitly state when not to call it or name an alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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