Get keyword

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive), and with no output schema the description carries the full burden of return semantics. It discloses the three distinct reasons latest_position can be null, instructs the agent to read latest_check.status and observation_completeness, and explains that only complete coverage supports absence-within-depth while a positive position stays valid under truncation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and most sentences carry distinct semantic content about nullability and coverage. It is a dense wall of text with some restatement of the coverage concept across last two sentences, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return-value semantics an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It does not address the optional project_id's effect or authorization needs, but those are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 both keyword_id and the optional project_id are already documented with patterns and guidance. The description adds nothing about parameter usage or the market-pair inputs, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (get) and resource (a keyword by keyword id) and immediately scopes the payload to the latest rank position plus the market pair fields. This clearly separates it from list_keywords and get_keyword_metrics, which an agent can distinguish without opening either schema.

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?

Usage context is implied by the keyword_id lookup ('by keyword id'), but the description never says when to prefer this over get_keyword_metrics, list_keywords, or get_rank_history, and names no alternative. It offers interpretation guidance for the result rather than tool-selection guidance.

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