get_project_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the basic function and omits key details such as pagination behavior, whether it returns all tracked keywords or only those with rankings, or what 'current rankings' looks like in the response. It also does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation.

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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

The description gives a high-level purpose but lacks details about the return structure and pagination. Since there is no output schema, the description should more explicitly state what 'current rankings' means and that pagination is supported. The presence of sibling tools also suggests more context could be given about its role, making this only minimally viable.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for page, limit, and project_id. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('tracked keywords with their current rankings'), and the scope ('for a project'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_keyword_history (historical data) and get_keyword_suggestions (suggestions, not current tracked rankings).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving current rankings, but it does not mention exclusions or when to prefer get_keyword_history or other sibling tools. No comparison or context is provided.

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