Load domain overview keywords

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description explains the non-obvious why — a cache miss spends provider budget — and the auth requirement (write scope) that this creates. It also discloses the snapshot_expired failure state, giving the agent behavioral context the structured metadata alone cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying useful information (scope requirement, cost semantics, prerequisite state) with zero filler. The action is slightly buried after the precondition sentences rather than front-loaded, which costs a point but not the overall quality.

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?

With no output schema and a budget-spending, non-read-only operation, the description covers auth scope, cost dialect, and the snapshot_expired return signal. It stops short of describing what a returned keyword row contains or pagination mechanics, but the essential safety and prerequisite context is present.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: why max_cost_cents is mandatory and that a zero value is an explicit cache-only attempt (forgoing paid data). This elevates the cost-control parameter beyond its schema description, though other required params like target/location_code get no extra narrative.

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 and resource: "Loads one ranked-keyword page for the current Domain Overview target," which is meaningfully more specific than the title. It implies the pagination scope (one page of ranked keywords), distinguishing it from the sibling load_domain_overview_pages, though it never names an alternative to make the distinction airtight.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites and conditions: it requires API write scope and an explicit max_cost_cents, advises "Use zero for cache-only," and warns that "snapshot_expired means analysis must run again first." What is missing is an explicit pointer to the alternative to run when the snapshot is expired (e.g., analyze_domain_overview).

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