direct.list_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the name. It doesn't disclose read-only semantics explicitly, pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether selection_criteria is required to avoid a full dump. This is a significant gap for a 6-param listing tool.

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 terse sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and no wasted wording. It is efficient but arguably too thin to be maximally useful.

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 tool with 6 parameters including pagination, advanced overrides, agency multi-project login, and a raw SelectionCriteria object, plus no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent needs to know default field behavior, pagination semantics, and expected return shape far better than this.

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%, so every parameter (page, params, account_id, field_names, selection_criteria, direct_client_login) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb (List) and resource (keywords) scoped to Yandex Direct, so an agent can identify it as a read operation over keyword entities. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as direct.hf.find_keywords or direct.create_keywords/update_keywords, so the agent must rely on name alone to disambiguate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus direct.hf.find_keywords, direct.report, or the create/update keyword tools. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, so the agent has no routing help.

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