List a Niche's Keyword Exclusions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond safety to disclose ordering ('oldest first'), the interaction between the two lists (phrase totals don't double-count exact exclusions), and the scope of exclusions across dive/Outliers/Residue/hand-added keywords. It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read tool this is substantial added context.

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and the return-format detail is ordered and easy to scan. It is dense and fairly long, but each clause (ordering, counting semantics, exclusion scope, mutation siblings) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values — and it does: both list names, per-entry fields (`searchVolume`, `excludedKeywordsCount`), and the counting rule. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage — the schema already explains `nicheId` and points to `list_niches`. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it lists the keywords hidden from a niche's Master Keyword List, and names the exact sibling that surfaces the complement (`get_niche_keywords`). The two list variants (`exact`, `phrase`) are named, so the agent can distinguish it from every other sibling immediately.

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 a concrete diagnostic trigger ('when a keyword the user expects is missing from `get_niche_keywords`') plus the mutation alternatives (`add_keyword_exclusions`, `remove_keyword_exclusions`). Both when-to-use and the related-tool routing are explicit.

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