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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description rightly omits that. It adds behavior beyond annotations: pagination behavior, support for sorting and intent filter, and the volume bucket enum values. It does not contradict the read-only annotation and provides useful operational context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in field details, pagination, sorting, and filtering without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. It omits critical details such as how cursor pagination works, how to construct the sorting array, and how volume bucket values relate to parameters or responses. The agent is left with too much inference required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that pagination, sorting, and intent filtering are supported without explaining cursor usage, sorting array structure, or the meaning of each parameter. It names the existence of these features but not how to use them, leaving the agent to guess from the schema structure alone.

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 and resource ('List keywords tracked for a project') and enumerates the returned fields (text, difficulty, intent, volume bucket with its enum values). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list_* tools like list_competitors or list_pages by the resource type.

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 usage for browsing a project's keywords and mentions pagination, sorting, and intent filtering, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single keyword use get_keyword_detail). No exclusions are provided.

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