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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description adds the useful fact that creation does not trigger a crawl and that it returns id and uuid, but says nothing about required permissions, whether referenced ids must already exist, or what happens on duplicate creation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the constraint and return value in parentheses and a trailing sentence. No filler, though the second sentence is a flat enumeration that could be clearer.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It covers the uuid alternation and the return shape but leaves most required inputs—url_list, lengths, research flags—undefined, which an agent cannot infer.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but only explains the id/_uuid pairing for four fields. The four required parameters (url_list, has_research, article_length, research_length) plus language, pass_path_list and pass_domain_list get no explanation at all.

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 and resource ('Create a new seliee_crawl_keyword_analyzer entry'), and the parenthetical about running `extract` separately clarifies that this is only the creation step. The resource name is internal jargon and isn't distinguished from list/get/delete siblings explicitly, keeping it at 4.

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 note that crawling requires running `extract` separately in the panel is genuinely useful context about what this tool does *not* do. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the list/get siblings or what prerequisites (e.g., existing customer/gservice records) must exist first.

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