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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation is free ('no paid ranking check is triggered') and it describes the resulting side effect (each keyword lands with ranking page, position, funnel stage). Auth/limits aren't covered, but the cost and outcome disclosure is valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then outcome, then cost, then the preview alternative. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema and a simple two-parameter shape, the description supplies what an agent needs: what gets created, its fields, the cost profile, and the preview workflow. Minor gap is that limit behavior/scale isn't hinted beyond the schema default.

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 both parameters (site_id and limit with its default of 50) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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+resource: track/populate keywords from queries the site already ranks for in GSC. It clearly delineates the action (seeding tracked keywords from existing GSC data), distinguishing it from get_gsc_keyword_candidates (preview) and add_tracked_keywords without needing the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule: 'Preview with get_gsc_keyword_candidates first if the user should approve the list.' It names the sibling and the condition that selects it, though it doesn't spell out when NOT to use this tool or contrast further with add_tracked_keywords.

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