Get the Keywords of a Fast Keywords Result

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the rest — and it does, disclosing the returned fields (keyword, searchVolume, organicRank, sponsoredRank), the sort order (highest search volume first), the 100-row page cap, and the hasNext-driven traversal pattern. It stops short of stating what happens if the run is not yet successful (empty result vs. error).

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 front-loaded sentences: prerequisite first, then payload shape, then pagination mechanics. The parenthetical enumeration of pagination metadata fields is slightly bulky but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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, the description compensates well by naming the return fields and the pagination envelope, and by prescribing the loop termination condition. Only the error/edge behavior for an unfinished or failed run is left unexplained.

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 parameter meaning is already documented in the schema; the description's 'page holds at most 100' largely repeats the schema's maximum and defaults. It adds the traversal intent (keep requesting while `hasNext` is true) but no new semantics for `currentPage`/`pageSize` beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('read the keywords of a finished Fast Keywords run') and implicitly separates itself from the sibling `get_fast_keywords`, which returns the run/status rather than the keyword rows. The distinguishing scope (finished run, keyword rows) is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and gating condition: check `status` is `success` via `get_fast_keywords` first. That is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to a named sibling, leaving little to inference beyond exhausted-page looping, which is also spelled out.

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