Get keyword

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns the 'latest rank position', which is useful context beyond annotations. With annotations carrying the main safety burden, this is adequate.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the primary action and adds the key return detail. Could be slightly richer, but for a simple single-keyword fetch, length is appropriate.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with good annotations and full schema parameter coverage, so the description's job is modest. However, it doesn't mention the output shape (no output schema exists), and it doesn't clarify the relationship/requirement between project_id and keyword_id — e.g., whether project_id is optional or required for scoping. For a simple tool this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (keyword_id and project_id) with patterns and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds the semantic that the result includes the latest rank position but doesn't explain how project_id relates to keyword_id lookup.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get a keyword') and adds the specific scope of 'latest rank position by keyword id'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_keywords (bulk listing) and get_keyword_metrics (metrics-focused). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is clear and specific.

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 implies single-keyword retrieval by id, which distinguishes it from list_keywords, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this vs alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use get_keyword_metrics, get_rank_history, or run_rank_check instead). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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