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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the listing purpose, saying nothing about pagination, result limits, required scope, or whether all keywords are returned.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, clearly leading with the action and resource. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the two required identifiers.

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 tool with two required identifiers and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description omits what projectId and siteId represent and does not indicate result scope or pagination. Annotations cover safety, but the definition remains incomplete 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for both required parameters (projectId and siteId). The description does not mention either parameter or explain what they scope, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required inputs.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List the keywords') and adds domain context ('used to search for link prospects'), so the agent knows this returns outreach keyword records. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listers like list_article_keywords or list_lead_keywords, preventing a 5.

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 alternatives such as list_prospects, add_outreach_keywords, or remove_outreach_keyword, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose.

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