Refresh Fast Keywords

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the Dive token cost, irreversibility, 24-hour refresh limit, concurrent-run restriction, and the fact that a failed eligibility check charges nothing. It also warns against retrying after errors or timeouts and explains the required polling behavior.

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 dense but appropriately sized for a paid, destructive, asynchronous operation with a two-step confirmation model. The purpose and warning are front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational or safety-relevant information.

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 destructive mutation, token cost, cooldown, and asynchronous return, the description covers everything an agent needs: eligibility behavior, confirmation flow, failure modes, retry safety, return fields, and polling instructions.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the `confirm` approval flow and the source of `fastKeywordsId`, but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 're-run an existing Fast Keywords result with current data.' It clearly distinguishes this from related siblings like `run_fast_keywords` and `get_fast_keywords` by framing the action as refreshing an existing result.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance and a full two-step confirmation workflow: first call checks eligibility and balance, then call again with `confirm: true` only after user approval. It also names the exact fallback alternative, `get_fast_keywords`, when retrying is unsafe or while a run is active.

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