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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping notion of "saved for a website's articles"; it says nothing about return size, pagination, or ordering, so it stays at minimum viable.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile and there is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. But for a two-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameters and the list-vs-search distinction entirely unaddressed.

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% and the description adds nothing about the two required parameters (projectId, siteId) – not their format, hierarchy, or relationship. It only loosely implies that siteId maps to "a website." The description fails to compensate for the total documentation gap.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus resource ("article keywords") with a clear scope ("saved for a website's articles"). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like search_article_keywords, import_article_keywords, or add_article_keywords, which the agent must infer.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent gets no signal on how this differs from search_article_keywords (which would be the natural confusion point).

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