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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: it discloses the return values (deleted, not-found), that weekly rank checks stop, that past snapshots are retained, and that a gap appears if the keyword is re-tracked. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, each load-bearing: trigger, outcome values, side effects, and exclusion. The usage trigger is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the non-obvious behavioral consequences (snapshot retention, re-track gap) and the return values. Nothing needed to call this 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully carries the 'id' semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing detail about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: stopping tracking of one keyword, backed by the title/name. It contrasts itself against a pause operation, which sharpens the scope, though it never names a sibling tool from the provided list.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when...' trigger for stopping keyword tracking, plus an exclusion ('Not for pausing tracking temporarily'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool for temporary pauses, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully enumerated.

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