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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'newest first' ordering, the exact report sections returned, and that the tool 'spends nothing,' which is cost information not captured in the annotations. It does not cover edge cases like missing reports or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then lists report contents efficiently. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague text.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the report's contents and ordering. It also clarifies cost and read-only behavior. Minor gaps remain around what happens when no baseline or applied draft exists, but the description is nearly complete for a single-parameter report retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter application_id is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for an application,' which aligns with the parameter but adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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 names a specific resource ('Weekly Wow Keywords reports for an application') and enumerates what the report contains: rank changes, new top-10 terms, dropped terms, and modeled coverage. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wow_keywords_get, wow_keywords_status, or wow_keywords_run.

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 by 'reports' and 'newest first,' suggesting retrieval of historical weekly report data. However, the description never states when to choose this over wow_keywords_get, wow_keywords_status, or wow_keywords_run, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having an applied draft.

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