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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: change encoding (positive = rise, negative = drop, outside Top 100 counts as 100), the summary contents, and a 100-row page cap. It omits permissions/auth and rate-limit context, but for a read-style listing tool the return-semantics disclosure is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and packed with return-field detail in essentially one dense sentence with zero filler. The breadth of detail makes it slightly heavy, but nothing is wasted or padded.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and the change/summary encoding usefully substitutes for a missing return spec. However, three parameters (device, limit, offset) remain undocumented anywhere, leaving the definition 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?

Schema coverage is 33% (only project_id and query documented), so the description should compensate. It explains order_by=change but leaves device, limit, and offset semantics unstated, so the coverage gap is only partially filled and the two enums are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (tracked keywords of a project) and enumerates the returned fields (last position, previous position, change, URL, AI Overview, summary). This clearly separates it from history/gap siblings implicitly, but it never names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives one actionable usage hint (order_by=change surfaces the biggest drops first) and notes pagination, so usage is implied. It offers no when-to-use vs get_keyword_history/get_keyword_gap guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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