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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results come back as a Markdown table and enumerating the columns returned. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is two short, direct sentences with no filler or repetition. The main action is front-loaded, and the output-format sentence adds concrete value without bloating the 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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with a required appId, a pagination schema, and an output schema present, the description is functionally complete. It could be slightly stronger by adding an explicit note that this returns only the current tracked keywords and not historical or aggregated overview data, but that gap is shared with usage guidance.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (appId, skip, and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meaning the schema carries the heavy lifting here.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tracked keywords for an Appskyline app', and it specifies the exact output format (Markdown table with id, term, language, country, bid). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling keyword-related tools like get_keyword_overview or get_keyword_history, but the basic listing purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies that this tool is for viewing the currently tracked keyword set, and provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools such as get_keyword_history or get_keyword_overview. It is adequate but does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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