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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—the wasted-intent share flag—but says nothing about output shape, batch limits, or keyword list size, so with annotations present it lands at a solid baseline.

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 actual operation and output categories, which is good, but the trailing promotional URL to an external calculator consumes space without helping an agent invoke the tool, and the second half is compressed to the point of adding no operational detail.

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 single-parameter, closed-world, read-only grading tool with no output schema, the description covers the input domain and the qualitative return (three tiers plus a wasted-intent share), which is enough to call it correctly. Only exact output field names/format are unspecified, a minor gap.

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% and there is a single required parameter whose schema description ('List of search keywords/queries to grade') fully covers it. The description's 'list of search keywords' merely restates the schema, adding no format, length, or delimiter guidance.

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 (grade) and resource (list of search keywords) plus the output dimensions (transactional/commercial/informational tiers and wasted-intent share). An agent can distinguish it from adjacent siblings like lead_quality_intent_evaluator or ppc_click_volume_predictor, though the description never explicitly names 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool applies to paid-search keyword lists. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many intent/scoring siblings (e.g. lead_quality_intent_evaluator), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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