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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant. The description does add useful behavior—results are ranked by estimated savings and can be batch-applied in the documented 'text|BROAD' format—but adds nothing on runtime behavior like rate limits or result shape.

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 purpose in the first clause, followed by the parameter note and a practical workflow tip. Mostly earns its space, though the heavy all-caps emphasis and the bulk-call instruction slightly bloat it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained days and limit parameters leave a real gap in how an agent should invoke it.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only clarifies min_waste (minimum spend threshold in ₺); days, limit, and customer_id receive no explanation of expected values or defaults, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 outcome: it finds SEARCH TERMS that spend money but bring no conversions and ranks them by estimated savings. An agent can distinguish this from search_terms_report or keyword_opportunities because the wasteful-spend framing and savings ranking are explicit.

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 context of use is implied (analyze wasteful search terms) and it helpfully routes the agent to add_negative_keyword for follow-up actions. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or why to pick it over the closely related search_terms_report / list_negative_keywords siblings.

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