keepa_check_variations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'check' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what the response format is, whether it makes live calls, or any rate limits. It adds some context beyond the name by naming the specific checks, but minimal depth.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. There is zero wasted text; every word contributes to the purpose. It is as short as possible while making sense.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining the return value and any important details. It does not. The agent may not know what the check produces, what 'orphans', 'attribute drift', or 'child changes' mean in the context, or how to interpret the result. This makes the description incomplete for a tool with no structured output metadata.

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% (both asins and domain have descriptions). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it only describes the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' with a clear resource 'variation family' and names specific scopes: orphans, attribute drift, and child changes. This distinguishes it from sibling keepa_get_variations, which likely just retrieves variation data, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 phrasing 'check variation family for...' implies it is used for validating variation family health, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like keepa_get_variations or keepa_get_changes. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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