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 nothing beyond restating the list operation — no mention of pagination, result volume, ordering, or whether keywords are site-wide or per-article.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 two required, completely undescribed parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond safety hints, the description should carry more weight — at minimum clarifying the two IDs and what the returned keyword list represents. As written it is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 both required parameters (projectId, siteId) are undocumented. The description's 'website' hints at siteId but never explains projectId or the relationship between the two, so the agent cannot confidently supply them.

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 ('List') and resource ('keywords saved for a website's articles'), and the site-scoped framing hints at how it differs from other keyword lists. However, it never names or contrasts with the many sibling keyword tools (list_tracked_keywords, list_lead_keywords, list_outreach_keywords), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other keyword-listing siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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