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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: newest-first ordering, the fields returned (archive time, reason, volume, difficulty at archive time), the meaning of the 'removed' vs 'rebuild' reasons, and that the call is free.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource scope and ordering front-loaded before the restore pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, ordering, reason semantics, and cost model. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps (no paging guidance) left to the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents site, limit, offset, and search. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what those fields provide, 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 (list) and resource (archived keywords) and pins down the exact source (Settings > Keywords > Archived), distinguishing it from siblings like list_my_keywords and get_keywords. An agent can tell exactly what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to the complementary action ('Put any of them back with restore_archived_keywords'), giving clear context for the follow-up tool. It doesn't spell out when to prefer this over list_my_keywords, but the scope statement makes the distinction obvious.

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