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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description's 'Does not change anything' only repeats that safety profile and adds no new behavioral context such as pagination behavior, permissions, 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns before noting it is non-mutating and listing related tools. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It is nearly complete, though it could add a brief note on when to prefer this list over related keyword tools.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters, including pagination, query, source, audience, and tagNames. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: lists saved keywords, and names the data returned (tags, exclusions, tracking status, latest rank). It also names related tools, so an agent can distinguish this read operation from save_keywords and get_rankings.

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 retrieval of saved keywords and names related tools, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no condition for choosing this over alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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