keepa_check_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose key traits such as whether checking tokens itself consumes tokens, whether it requires authentication, or the format of the response. For a token-checking tool, this is a significant gap.

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 one sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant content, every word 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 simple status tool with no output schema, the description implies the return values (remaining tokens and refresh rate), but it omits whether the call itself consumes tokens or any context on how to interpret the refresh rate. Given the lack of annotations, this is a noticeable gap.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no misleading parameter information, and there are no parameters to explain.

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 ('Check remaining Keepa API tokens and refresh rate') and the resource (tokens and refresh rate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which all focus on product data or tracking, whereas this is a utility/status check.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, such as checking tokens before API calls, or any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced. The usage is only implied by the tool name, not the description.

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