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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is a restatement rather than added value. The one genuinely additive note is that trackedKeywords rows carry store and country IDs, implying cross-store aggregation — but there is no disclosure of result limits, paging, or what happens when no keywords are tracked.

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 sentences and front-loaded, but the bulk of the first sentence is a nine-item inventory of return fields that the output schema already defines, which is low-value padding. The one non-redundant clause (row IDs across stores and countries) is buried mid-sentence.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return-value enumeration is mostly wasted effort, while the information an agent actually needs — paging/limits, behavior for projects with zero keywords, and the relationship to sibling keyword tools — is absent. For a two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate rather than 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%: storeProvider is documented in the schema (defaults to the project's primary store), but projectId has none. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the half-documented schema, and it says nothing about how store filtering shapes the returned rows despite alluding to cross-store data.

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 clear verb+resource ('Returns tracked keywords') and enumerates the payload, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like get_keyword_history or list_keyword_competitors, which is the only thing keeping it off 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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (a project must have tracked keywords), and no pointer to the obvious alternatives (get_keyword_history for time series, list_keyword_competitors for competitor detail). The reader must infer the calling context entirely.

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