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 burden. It explicitly discloses it's free, reads stored data, spends no quota, and requires a signed-in account. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool, though it doesn't specify response format 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?

The description is somewhat wordy — the parenthetical 'the part that makes this actionable' and 'or not ranking' add color but could be trimmed. However, it's front-loaded with the purpose and the actionable guidance is woven efficiently into one paragraph. Mostly tight with minor verbosity.

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 read-only list tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists all the fields returned, explains the join value, and covers auth requirements and cost. Slightly more detail on what happens with no results or edge cases would push it to 5, but this is strong.

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%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the 'stage' filter semantics ('none' is 'the useful one: keywords with nothing written for them yet') and gives a concrete domain example ('acme.com'), going beyond what the schema prose provides.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns the keyword board for a domain with Google position, search volume, competition, verdict, and content state. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by framing this as 'the join you want before writing anything.' Strong verb+resource specificity.

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 explicitly explains when to use it ('before writing anything' to see which keywords still have no page behind them). It also names related concepts and distinguishes by noting it's 'free, reads stored data, spends no quota,' which implicitly sets expectations vs scan tools like run_scan or gsc_query.

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