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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful scope information ('one storefront') and output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, default ordering, or rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, scope, and output metrics efficiently.

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?

The description plus schema annotations provide enough context for basic invocation. Minor gaps remain around offset semantics and the exact output structure, but these are not critical for a read-only list operation already covered by annotations.

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 83%, so most parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; offset remains undocumented, though its semantics are reasonably self-evident.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Lists an app's keywords in one storefront'. It also specifies what data is returned (rank, popularity, difficulty), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_keyword (singular) and ranking_keywords.

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 its purpose clearly but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_keyword or ranking_keywords. There are no exclusions or direct sibling comparisons, so usage context is only implied.

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