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 the GET endpoint and the nature of the returned payload, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, error cases, or pagination.

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 short sentences with the payload description front-loaded and the endpoint tacked on. Efficient, though the trailing 'GET /keyword/{keyword_id}' largely repeats information already carried by the tool name.

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?

A read-only single-resource getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema; the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent, though the return shape is only partially sketched.

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% and the single keyword_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source tool. The description adds only the /keyword/{keyword_id} path template, which restates the schema rather than extending it, 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 resource and scope: a single mobile keyword retrieved 'in detail', with the fields surfaced (auto-response message, code, alternative messages). This clearly separates it from the sibling trumpia_list_keywords by singularity, though it never names that sibling 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?

The phrase 'one ... in detail' implies retrieval-by-id versus the list tool, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is given. The schema's pointer to trumpia_list_keywords as the id source is the only routing hint.

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