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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant rather than additive. The one useful behavioral signal is the output shape guidance that the result is an actionable add_keywords call or a negative to review. Nothing is said about the lookback window semantics, cost or latency of the analysis, or whether findings are capped by default.

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, front-loaded with the value proposition and the three finding categories, with the output expectation last. The trailing 'Tools revision: 5c9bea8f.' is noise that earns no place 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 the description need not explain return values, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What remains missing for a five-parameter analytical tool with no schema descriptions is any guidance on the time window, detail level, or result cap, which materially change what an agent gets back.

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% and there are five parameters, yet the description says nothing about days, detail, render, max_findings, or customer_id. An agent cannot tell from the description that 'days' controls the analysis lookback (default 30) or that 'detail' toggles summary versus full findings. Only the required customer_id is guessable from the tool's domain.

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 gives a concrete verb-plus-resource ('find keyword opportunities') and enumerates three specific finding types: converting search terms not yet keywords, converting keywords losing impression share, and negatives blocking a converting term. That scope distinguishes it from analyze_search_terms and analyze_waste without naming them, though it never explicitly routes to those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic step that precedes add_keywords or negative review, since the description says it 'Returns the add_keywords call or the negative to review.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling analysis tools (analyze_search_terms, analyze_waste, get_keyword_ideas).

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