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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics beyond that: what 'active' versus 'retired' actually means for the underlying search runs, which is genuine context the annotations don't carry. It does not mention pagination/limit 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource concept and ending with the actionable 'contains' tip. The opening sentence is slightly awkward and indirect, but nothing is padded.

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 and a fully documented 5-parameter schema, the description supplies the domain framing (what keywords are, what the statuses mean) plus the cross-tool workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 meaning the schema lacks: it explains the real-world significance of the status values (active vs. retired) and gives a concrete reason to use 'contains'. The limit/offset/workspaceId parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 explains that these are the Google searches used to discover sites for a campaign, and it distinguishes the two states (active = still searching, retired = removed/fully searched). Combined with the name list_keywords, an agent knows what it returns, though the description never states the verb directly and relies on the name. It does reference the sibling remove_keywords, giving some 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?

It gives an explicit workflow cue: use 'contains' to find exact text before calling remove_keywords, which routes the agent correctly to a downstream tool. It does not say when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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