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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: removal frees plan slots and position history is preserved, so re-adding does not reset progress. It stops short of stating auth requirements or that removal is immediate/permanent for the tracking row.

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 zero waste, front-loading the action and resource before the consequence. Every clause carries information about effect or data retention.

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 destructive two-param tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs (slot freeing, history retention). It is essentially complete, though a note on whether the action can be undone server-side would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the app_id vs apple_app_id distinction and the ids-not-terms caveat. The description merely echoes the keyword_ids semantics, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 ('Remove') and resource ('tracked keywords') scoped to an app, which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_competitors, remove_market, and add_keywords. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening 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?

Usage is implied by the effect statement ('frees the slots against the plan limit'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing ids from get_keywords), and no comparison to alternatives such as tag_keywords for organizing rather than removing.

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