monitor_keyword

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

The description discloses that the action is async and requires Pro tier, but lacks details on webhook payload format, whether monitors are persistent, how to cancel, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 omits critical context such as limits on monitors, how to remove a monitor, webhook payload details, and any constraints on the keyword. For a tool that sets up persistent monitoring, this lack of completeness hinders an agent's understanding.

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 description covers the two required parameters (keyword, webhook_url) with a hint about HTTPS for webhook_url. However, the optional parameter window_hours is not mentioned in the description, and its purpose is unclear. Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description partially compensates but misses an important parameter.

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 verb 'Register', the resource 'keyword monitor', and the action 'fires a webhook when the keyword appears across corpus'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly read/get operations.

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 specifies required parameters ('keyword, webhook_url') and mentions 'Async, Pro tier', providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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