Get keyword volume report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned provider data is untrusted content not instructions, the response carries MCP allowance and provider credit freshness, and the two unit systems are distinct.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the text mixes tool description with agent operating instructions (balance reporting, MCP-vs-provider unit distinction) that read as tangential prose rather than definitional content. The 'MCP admission units are separate from provider credits' sentence is niche and could be trimmed.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (report data plus balance/credit freshness) and flags content-trust risk, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Return format details are the only mild gap.

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% for the single reportId parameter, and the schema already clarifies it is the MCP reportId rather than a provider ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('Retrieve an owned keyword report and its provider data') and adds the scope constraint 'without creating another report', which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_keyword_volume_report. An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing guidance ('Do not call get_balance again when the response already includes balance') and implies this is the read path for existing reports vs. the create tool. It stops short of stating the full precondition set (e.g. when to prefer create), so it is clear context rather than exhaustive when/when-not.

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