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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (stored rank-check history) and the required authorization scope (rescan). It stops short of stating the behavior for keywords that are not currently tracked or the effect of re-adding 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destructive consequence and the auth prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what gets removed, that history is permanently deleted, and what credential is needed. Only edge-case behavior (untracked keywords, partial failures when removing many) is left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (productKey, keywords) are already documented, including the 100-item cap. The description adds no formatting or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (removes) and resource (keywords from a product's rank-tracking board), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling add_tracked_keywords. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage is only implied by the mutation semantics; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer an alternative (e.g., add_tracked_keywords to reverse), and no preconditions beyond the auth requirement. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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