track_keywords

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Each keyword triggers an immediate ranking fetch' (external side effect), 'Already-tracked keywords return a per-keyword error in results' (duplicate handling), and 'previously removed keywords are reactivated automatically' (complex stateful behavior). These go far beyond the basic readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint flags.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, side effect, and error/reactivation behavior. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what triggers, how duplicates are handled, reactivation, and input source. It doesn't describe the success response format, but that's not critical in absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or cost implications of the 'immediate ranking fetch,' but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics; it repeats the app_id source (already in schema) and mentions 'up to 20' (matching maxItems). No additional clarity on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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's function: 'Track up to 20 new keywords for one of your applications in a single call.' It uses a specific verb (track) and resource (keywords), and distinguishes itself from siblings like untrack_keyword and list_keywords by focusing on creation/reactivation.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use app_id from list_applications results' gives a concrete source for a required parameter. It also implies when to use this tool (to add or reactivate keywords) through behavioral notes, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like untrack_keyword or state when not to use it.

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