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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete guardrails: replace_existing=true requires explicit user approval to discard pending topics and also requires confirm_replace_existing=true. It also warns about multi-minute latency, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by optional inputs, latency, and then the critical destructive guardrail. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

Complete enough to invoke: required website, optional keyword/instructions, wait-time expectation, and safeards for the destructive path. It does not describe the return value or point to get_keyword_plan for retrieving the generated plan, but there is no output schema and the core behavior is clear.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that primary/secondary keywords are comma-separated, treats topic_instructions as an optional guide, and explains the replace_existing/confirm_replace_existing relationship. It does not explicitly define website_id, but the name and required status make it reasonably clear.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: generate an AI keyword/content plan. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as get_keyword_plan (retrieval) and generate_article (article creation) by naming the output 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?

It gives clear context: use it to produce a plan, optionally shaped by topic instructions and keywords, with a latency warning. It does not explicitly contrast with fetching an existing plan via get_keyword_plan or say when not to generate, so it lacks full when/when-not alternatives.

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