keepa_get_sales_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves time-series data and specifies the metric (units sold per month), which conveys a read-only behavior. However, it does not mention any limitations such as token costs, data availability, or that some ASINs may lack sales history. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 exactly two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies the output unit. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (2 well-described parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value: monthly units sold over time. It covers the core function without extraneous detail. However, it could mention the historical range or note that data is aggregated monthly, but the description already says 'monthly' and 'over time,' so it is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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%, with both 'asins' and 'domain' already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that the output is monthly sales volume. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'Get monthly sales volume time series for ASINs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like keepa_get_price_history or keepa_get_buy_box by focusing on sales volume over time. It is immediately evident what the tool does.

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 usage for sales volume data but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools exist for price history, best sellers, etc., but no exclusions or comparisons are provided. This is an implied-use case rather than clear contextual guidance.

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