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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: write-access requirement, idempotent skip behavior, no immediate rank check, and plan-allowance partial success. These details go well beyond the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint flags, giving an agent an accurate model of side effects and timing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational constraint: auth, idempotency, timing, and limits. No filler or repeated schema 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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, safety, timing, and failure/partial-success behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and set expectations.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful keyword behavior: already-tracked keywords are skipped and plan allowance limits how many are added. This clarifies what happens to the keywords array beyond the raw schema constraints.

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?

Description opens with 'Start tracking new keywords on a Ranklogs project,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the keyword/project scope distinguishes it from the other add/research tools available.

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?

Provides clear context: requires write access, repeated calls are safe because already-tracked keywords are skipped, and results only appear after the next daily rank check. It does not mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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