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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it flags that message text is untrusted customer content (a prompt-injection caution) and notes the one-page default return unless stated otherwise. It stops short of describing auth requirements or pagination totals.

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?

Three short sentences with the operation and its scope front-loaded, followed by the trust warning and the pagination note. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint path restates the resource already named in sentence one.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about the parameters and the shape of the returned keyword records. It partially compensates by naming what comes back (enrollment settings, responses, group IDs) but leaves page/page_size and dashboard_id selection unexplained.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It implies that dashboard_id scopes the result through the endpoint path and hints at paging with 'returns one page,' but it never explains what page and page_size do, their bounds, or how dashboard_id must be chosen. Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 ('Read keyword enrollment settings, responses and associated group IDs') and pairs it with the concrete endpoint GET /dashboards/{dashboard_id}/keywords. The 'list' naming plus the plural resource clearly distinguishes it from the sibling textrequest_get_keyword, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the endpoint path (list keywords scoped to a dashboard) and by the read-only framing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus textrequest_get_keyword or when the list would be empty. The agent must infer the situation from the name and path alone.

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