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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds value by disclosing what the response contains: ranking pages, positions, ownership data, and related keywords. This gives the agent a useful behavioral model of the return payload even without an output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the tool's purpose, then packs the key return elements into a compact list. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only keyword detail lookup, the description covers the main return categories and project scoping. However, with no output schema and an opaque queryHash parameter, the description leaves a meaningful gap around how to construct a valid call and what exact shape the response takes.

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 only 33%. projectId has a format description and context has a plain-language goal instruction, but queryHash is entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining how to obtain queryHash or how it relates to other keyword tools.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword detail'), then adds concrete detail on what it returns: ranking pages with positions and ownership, plus related tracked keywords. This clearly separates it from list_keywords and other detail-getters.

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 makes it reasonably clear the tool is for inspecting a single keyword's ranking and related keywords, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_keywords, get_opportunity_detail, or get_competitor_detail. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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