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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (max 100), the default of only_uncovered, and the data returned. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or error conditions. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then detailing the key parameter and pagination. Every sentence adds information without unnecessary fluff.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the returned fields, the key parameter behavior, and pagination. It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 50% (3/6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value for only_uncovered by explaining its default and effect, but it does not clarify limit, offset, or location_code beyond the schema. The provided information is helpful but not fully compensating for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves keyword gaps from competitors, listing the returned fields (volume, position, difficulty, CPC, URL). It implies a distinction from get_keywords by specifying 'gap' and 'competitor', though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

The description implies usage for competitor keyword analysis and explains the default behavior of only_uncovered, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_keywords or get_competitors. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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