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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the quota cost ('Spends one of the founder's monthly keyword-research runs') and the authorization requirement ('Requires a key with the rescan scope'), plus what the output contains. Those are exactly the operational consequences an agent needs before triggering an open-world mutation.

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 action and output summary are front-loaded, then the quota warning, then the prerequisite — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense with domain jargon ('Jev-scored fit/demand/competition') that mildly slows parsing, but every clause carries information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, produced artifacts, cost, prerequisites, and the alternative to try first. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 are already documented, and the description's mention of a 'Google-autocomplete sweep' implies the seed without adding format or defaulting detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Runs one keyword research for a product') and then enumerates what the run produces: a Google-autocomplete sweep, model-clustered intent groups, volume/difficulty estimates, and prioritized content actions. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_keyword_ideas, which serves stored research rather than producing a new sweep.

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 tells the agent to 'check first with get_keyword_ideas whether the stored research still serves', naming the alternative and the condition selecting it. It further adds a pre-condition (a key with the rescan scope) and a cost constraint (one monthly run), so an agent knows both when to call and when not to.

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