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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so "Read only; no spend" largely restates structured data. Nothing is said about pagination behavior, result caps, or the fact that the nested parameters object drives filtering — the information an agent actually needs beyond the annotations.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the final sentence is a bare internal URI ("Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_list_ad_keywords") that conveys nothing to an agent and displaces information that would earn its place.

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?

A paginated list tool with a rich nested filter object and no output schema needs the description to explain filtering and return shape; instead it delegates to a URI pointer. An agent cannot reliably construct a call from this definition alone.

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?

Six top-level parameters with a nested parameters object containing nine sub-fields (page, limit, search, status, adSetId, negative, matchType, profileId, campaignId), none of which the description explains. Schema coverage is only 50% and the description contributes no meaning about filter combination, defaults, or whether adSetId vs campaignId scope the query.

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?

"List Search keywords" names a verb and a resource, but "Search keywords" is ambiguous in a sibling set that also contains soclo_ads_get_ads_search_terms, soclo_ads_add_ad_keywords, soclo_ads_update_ad_keyword and soclo_ads_list_campaign_negative_keywords. Nothing distinguishes it as the read-side keyword inventory for an ad group/ad set.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus soclo_ads_get_ads_search_terms, soclo_ads_list_campaign_negative_keywords or soclo_ads_get_ad_set_details. "Read only; no spend" signals a safe read but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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