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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful output behaviour (primary intent plus secondary intents with probabilities), but says nothing about billing/credit consumption, auth requirements, or why a data-returning endpoint is flagged destructive, leaving a notable gap.

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 sentences, reasonably front-loaded, but the second and third largely duplicate what the output schema already conveys about returned intent probabilities. 'For each keyword that you specify when setting a task' is also inaccurate for a live endpoint and adds noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it spends most of its length doing exactly that. For a paid, open-world POST endpoint with a body-only parameter contract, the description omits the practically important context: required language specification, credit cost, and any batching limits.

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?

The single top-level parameter (body) has no description at all, though its nested properties are richly documented in the schema (tag, keywords, language_code, language_name). The description only restates the 1,000-keyword cap already stated in the schema and adds no new detail about the language requirement or payload shape, so it neither compensates for the top-level gap nor adds value.

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 verb and resource: it returns search intent and intent probability for a specified set of keywords. That is unambiguous and more specific than most siblings (e.g. keyword_overview, keyword_ideas). It does not, however, draw any contrast against the many other Labs keyword endpoints that an agent must choose between.

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 description says what is returned but never when to prefer this endpoint over siblings such as google_keyword_overview or google_historical_keyword_data, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'when setting a task' is the only usage hint and it is ambiguous for a 'live' endpoint.

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