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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context by explaining what 'active' vs 'retired' mean in this system, but it does not cover ordering, default limits, or what a result row contains.

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?

Three sentences, but the first is an awkwardly phrased clause ('The Google searches discovery runs to find sites...') that does not front-load the actual action. The reader has to work to extract that this is a listing tool; the most important information is neither first nor clearly stated.

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?

With full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient: an agent knows how to filter and that the operation is safe. It is thin on return shape, ordering, and paging expectations, but those gaps are partly absorbed by the rich schema.

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% — limit, offset, status, contains, and workspaceId all have descriptions including the default ('Default active'). The description's reference to 'contains' adds a workflow reason to use it but no syntax or semantic detail 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?

The name/title establish the verb+resource (list/search keywords), and the description explains that these are Google-search discovery keywords for a campaign, so the domain is clear. However, the opening sentence is a definition of what keywords are rather than a statement of what the tool returns, and the description never actually says it lists/fetches them.

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 one concrete usage hint ('Use contains to find the exact text before remove_keywords'), routing the agent toward the remove flow, and clarifies the active/retired filter semantics. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance beyond that single callout, and no mention of paging through results.

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