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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read profile is established without relying on the description. The description adds useful detail about the Markdown-table response format and column contents, but does not go beyond that into additional behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main purpose and include the most useful additional detail, the Markdown table output with its fields. There is no redundant wording or 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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description is complete: it names the resource, the app scoping, and the output format. Pagination is covered by the input schema, and return-field details are covered by the output schema.

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%, so appId, skip, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of searchTerms clarifies an output field, not the parameters, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('tracked keywords for an Appskyline app'), and details the returned columns and format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_keyword and delete_keyword without requiring further inspection.

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 clearly conveys this is the read operation for retrieving tracked keywords, which is adequate context for selecting it over add/delete keyword tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set and the clear list semantics provide enough guidance.

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