List Keywords

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

The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or response format. It adds basic context but lacks depth.

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 description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the key information ('Project Tool:') but could benefit from slightly more structure, such as a brief note on response format or usage context.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. However, it omits details like expected return structure or any filtering capabilities, which are typical for a list tool. The description is functional but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying how parameters affect the output or providing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get a list of keywords with target pages for a project.' The verb 'get' and resource 'list of keywords' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DATA_getDomainKeywords or PROJECT_addKeywords, which also deal with keywords.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DATA_getDomainKeywords or other PROJECT tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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