List Fast Keywords Runs

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing organizational scope ('whole organization'), sort order ('newest request first'), the full set of returned fields and status enum values, and pagination metadata. It also gives useful cost/effort context (1 Dive token, minutes, no full niche dive), which materially informs tool choice.

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?

Front-loaded with the decisive 'Use this first' routing sentence, then domain context, then return shape, then filtering. The enumerated field list is long but earns its place since there is no output schema; only minor trimming is possible.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns field-by-field, ordering, scope, pagination, and how to filter. Nothing essential is delegated to an absent structured field.

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%, so all four parameters (search, pageSize, currentPage, marketplace) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the two filtering parameters ('Narrow with `search` or `marketplace`') without adding format or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Lists the runs' of Fast Keywords) and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming get_fast_keywords, get_fast_keywords_keywords and refresh_fast_keywords. It also explains in one clause what a Fast Keywords run is (keywords a product ranks for from just an ASIN), so an agent can recognize the domain without opening other schemas.

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?

'Use this first when the user asks about their Fast Keywords runs, or to find a `fastKeywordsId` for ...' gives an explicit entry-point rule plus the downstream tools that depend on the returned ID. It also states the narrowing options ('Narrow with `search` or `marketplace`'), so both when-to-use and how-to-narrow are covered.

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