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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled; the description adds what the annotations cannot — data source (Search Console), freshness (weekly, per page), and the specific states returned (position, competing pages, split between two pages, no page). It stops short of saying what happens when a client has no map or how large the payload is.

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?

Dense but well organized; every clause maps to something the agent needs. Front-loading is imperfect — the description opens with a conceptual definition of a keyword map before reaching the actual verb 'Reads' mid-sentence, and parentheticals like '(booked jobs, sales, leads or demos)' are mildly expendable.

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 carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely across four result areas. Residual gaps are minor: no note on behavior for clients lacking a map, and 'value times gap' is unexplained jargon for the opportunity ranking.

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 'client' parameter is documented as coming from list_clients, so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond restating that the map belongs to a client.

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 ('Reads the current map') and enumerates exactly what the read covers: cluster standings, pending approval changes, and ranked opportunities. The closing 'Changes nothing' cleanly separates it from the sibling write operations keyword_map_save and keyword_map_approve.

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 rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the read step before approving or saving, but the description never says 'use this when' or names keyword_map_approve/keyword_map_save/keyword_research as the alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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