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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 30-day default window, the guarantee that no broad-match negatives are proposed, and the fact that output is one ready-to-run add_negative_keywords call per theme. It says nothing about thresholds or how confidence/ordering is decided.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output contract, then the theme taxonomy, and closes with the two key constraints. The middle sentence is heavily nested with parentheticals about language profiles, and the trailing 'Tools revision: d80f65c0.' is build noise that does not belong in a tool description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a 7-parameter analysis tool with zero schema documentation, leaving min_clicks, max_findings, detail, and render unexplained means an agent cannot reason about result volume or verbosity from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the theme taxonomy (including the workspace never-show-for list and other-language fallback) and implies the day window, but min_clicks (default 3), max_findings (default 25), detail, and render are never mentioned — four tuning knobs an agent would plausibly need to set.

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 ('Group the last 30 days of search terms into negative-keyword candidates') plus the exact output shape ('one ready-to-run add_negative_keywords call per theme'). This clearly separates it from siblings like analyze_waste, search, and add_negative_keywords, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

The description makes the workflow position clear: it produces candidate calls for add_negative_keywords, and it declares 'Never proposes broad-match negatives' and 'Read-only', which bounds what to expect. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement naming alternatives such as analyze_waste or search for agents who want raw terms rather than themed candidates.

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