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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it consumes AI research usage (a metered cost), is plan-gated, requires user confirmation, and has a data prerequisite. The annotations only say non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the cost and gating disclosures carry meaningful extra weight. Return-format details are rightly omitted since an output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the cost/confirmation gating immediately after. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint or prerequisite.

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?

Covers the operational essentials an agent needs before calling: cost, plan eligibility, user confirmation, and the audience prerequisite. With an output schema present, return values don't need explaining. The only gap is the absence of any 'use this instead when...' routing.

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 0% for the single projectId parameter, and the description only implies it via "one project" and the audience-set prerequisite. It signals that projectId identifies a project with an SEO Agent audience, but adds no format or lookup guidance. Marginal but real compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 new keyword ideas for one project." This reads as a generation tool, distinct from lookup-style siblings like lookup_keywords or check_keywords. It doesn't explicitly contrast with find_opportunities or find_quick_wins, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: confirm with the user first, the project needs an audience set in the SEO Agent, and the plan must be Starter or Pro. That's clear usage context, though it never names an alternative tool or states when-not to use this one.

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