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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses the 50-keyword limit; it does not mention whether duplicates are handled, whether the target must exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on success or failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and resource. It includes the important limit but avoids any filler or redundant information, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but it lacks details on return values, duplicate keyword handling, and target validation. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent to discover.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, including descriptions for keyword, targetId, isPrimary, and pageScope. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource 'SEO keyword' and context 'to track for a target'. This unambiguously communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_keywords and remove_keyword.

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 the tool is used when adding a new keyword to a target's tracking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Max 50 keywords per target' constraint provides a boundary but no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternative tools.

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