List keyword inspections

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by promising the operation does not consume inspection quota and by naming the returned fields, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads what is listed and then adds the value proposition. No filler.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields and notes the quota benefit. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of results and pagination behavior, which an agent could infer from the schema.

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 page and per_page are already fully documented (including max 200 and default 50). The description adds no pagination or ordering detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (previously inspected keywords) and enumerates what is returned (last inspection date, difficulty/traffic scores). The word 'previously' distinguishes it from list_keywords, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clear use context: revisit past keyword research without re-consuming the inspection quota. It does not explicitly contrast with inspect_keyword or state when NOT to use it, but the quota-avoidance rationale is a solid usage signal.

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