list_keywords

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about pagination and the exact fields returned, which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose details like default sort order or whether the response includes total count, which would be helpful but not critical given the read-only annotation.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists the return fields concisely. Every sentence adds value, and it ends with 'Paginated' to signal behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains the return fields, pagination, and filtering options. It doesn't explain default sort order or total count, but those are minor gaps for a read-only list tool with good schema coverage.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention pagination and the 'is_favorite' flag, which aligns with the 'favorites' filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists tracked keywords with ASO metrics, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracked keywords'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_keyword_inspections and get_keyword_rank_history by focusing on the keyword list with metrics, not history or inspections.

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 implies usage for retrieving a paginated list of tracked keywords with metrics, and the schema provides filter parameters (app_id, favorites). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings like get_keyword_rank_history or inspect_keyword.

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