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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect of appending measurements to history, but omits important operational details such as cost/usage impact, rate limits, authentication needs, asynchronous behavior, or whether the measurement is synchronous.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The action and side effect are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 an action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the invocation returns, whether it is synchronous or job-based, how long it may take, or what usage/credit implications exist.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single appId parameter is well documented in the schema as a local app id from list_apps rather than an App Store ID. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: measure all tracked keywords of an app and append results to history. This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools such as get_app_keywords and get_keyword_history, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 word 'now' implies an on-demand refresh action, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_app_keywords, add_keywords, or other siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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