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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context – that responses are simplified – but does not say what is omitted or how results are ordered/paginated beyond the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 read-only filtered list with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves open what 'simplified' means for the return payload and what total ordering/paging behavior to expect.

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 100%, with page, size, and keywordOrExperimentName all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured fields already provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('search and browse') and resource ('keywords running in experiments'), which implicitly separates it from list_keywords and experiments_keywords_stats. No sibling is named explicitly, and 'simplified response data' is vague, keeping it below 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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_experiments, list_keywords, or experiments_keywords_stats. The only signal is the implicit 'in experiments' scoping, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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