list_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key constraint (one campaign at a time) and mentions pagination defaults, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it), error behavior for invalid campaign IDs, or any authentication/rate-limit details. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, an Args section, a Returns line, and Examples. Every section adds value, the examples are concise, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameter meanings, a usage constraint, and examples. Minor gaps remain regarding error handling and explicit safety assurances, but these are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 0% because the schema lacks property descriptions. The description compensates by providing semantic meaning for each parameter: campaign_id as 'The campaign ID (required)', offset as 'Pagination offset (default: 0)', and limit as 'Maximum number of results (default: 50)'. This goes beyond the schema's structural info (types, defaults, required) and includes a practical example.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'keywords for a campaign', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_campaigns, list_users, and list_backlinks. It also states the scope ('for a campaign') and the constraint of one campaign at a time, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('List keywords for a campaign', 'Keywords can only be queried one campaign at a time') and includes examples showing typical usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling tool names imply distinctions.

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