Run Fast Keywords

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond that, disclosing the exact cost (1 Dive token), irreversibility, the non-spending first call returning `confirmation_required`/`tokenCost`/`hasEnoughTokens`, the approval gate before `confirm: true`, and the retry hazard on error/timeout. This is the rare case where a write/mutating tool's cost and idempotency profile is fully spelled out.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and cost warning come first, then the call sequence, then return fields and follow-up routing. The middle is a long chained paragraph, but every clause carries an actionable instruction; only minor tightening 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (`fastKeywordsId`, `requestId`, `status`, `estimatedCompletionDate`) and describes the full lifecycle from first call through polling to reading and refreshing. An agent has everything needed to drive this multi-step, token-spending workflow 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the semantics of the two-phase `confirm` flow (first call checks eligibility and balance and spends nothing; second call only after user approval) that the schema only partially captures. It says nothing extra about `marketplace`/`asin`, which is fine since the schema covers them.

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 ('find the keywords a product ranks for from just its ASIN') and immediately scopes it against the heavier alternative ('without a full niche dive'), which separates it from create_niche_dive and refresh_fast_keywords in the sibling list.

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?

Explicit about when to use it (ASIN-only, fast), when not to retry ('Not safe to retry'), and which sibling to run instead in each downstream case: get_fast_keywords for polling, get_fast_keywords_keywords for reading, create_niche_dive for escalation, refresh_fast_keywords for re-running, list_fast_keywords after a timeout.

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