keepa_get_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Query' which implies read-only, but it does not state side effects, rate limits, pagination, output format, or the nature of 'changes' (e.g., price, offer, review). For a tool with no output schema, 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 a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Query') and directly states the resource and time scope. 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a minimal purpose statement. It does not explain what 'changes' refers to, the shape of the response, how filtering interacts with the severity parameter, or when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_price_history or get_buy_box. This is insufficient for a user to invoke it correctly.

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%, and every parameter (days, asins, domain, severity) has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—'over a given period' merely echoes the 'days' parameter. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all 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 the tool's function: 'Query detected changes for ASINs over a given period.' It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('changes for ASINs'), and the period scoping distinguishes it from related getter tools like get_product or get_price_history. Though it doesn't name siblings, the concept of 'detected changes' is distinct enough.

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 description implies the primary use case—retrieving change data for ASINs over a time window. It clearly communicates when to use the tool (when you need detected changes) but provides no exclusions or alternative tool references. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than explicit when/when-not guidance.

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