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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that keywords come from the saved profile, which is useful, but it does not disclose the output format or any other behavioral nuance. This is acceptable given strong annotations but adds only moderate value beyond them.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function and then supplies the practical use case. No filler, no repetition of the title, and 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?

Given that the tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it says what the tool does and why it is useful. It could be more explicit about the return shape, but 'keywords derived from saved profile' is enough for an agent to understand the expected result.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description still adds relevant context by clarifying that results derive from the saved profile and are meant for include_keywords, which fits the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the tool's action ('search keywords') and its resource ('derived from the saved profile'). It also states its intended use ('useful as include_keywords in update_targeting'), which distinguishes it from generic keyword tools and ties it to a specific sibling workflow.

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 clear usage context: when preparing include_keywords for update_targeting, this tool is the source of suggested keywords. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but for a zero-parameter utility tool the context is reasonably clear.

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