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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful nuance the schema does not state: that an entry is identified by either analyzer_id or analyzer_uuid. It says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or whether dependent data is affected.

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; the verb and lookup keys come first. The 'seliee_' prefix is wasted noise and the only imperfection in an otherwise tight definition.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity arguments but omits the two things an agent most needs: that one of the two keys is required in practice, and what happens on a missing/mismatched id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it names both parameters verbatim and frames them as alternatives ('by analyzer_id or analyzer_uuid'), which conveys one-of semantics. It does not clarify formats (integer id vs UUID string) or whether at least one is mandatory, leaving the both-nullable, zero-required schema ambiguous.

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 (delete) and resource (crawl_keyword_analyzer entry) plus the lookup keys, so an agent immediately understands this removes a single analyzer record. The entity is written as 'seliee_crawl_keyword_analyzer', a typo/inconsistent form of the tool name, which slightly blurs the mapping. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the delete_ prefix rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to delete versus fetch (get_crawl_keyword_analyzer) or list (list_crawl_keyword_analyzer) first, nor any warning that this is irreversible in practice. The only usage signal is that identification can be by id or uuid, with no rule for which to prefer.

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