list_keyword_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination ('Returns a paginated list') and filtering capability ('filtered by status'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'keyword searches' actually represent in the system context. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context (pagination and filtering). No wasted words or redundant information. Could be slightly improved with more explicit sibling differentiation but is already efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the core operation and key constraints (pagination, status filtering) but lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication needs, and how results are structured. For a list operation with 2 parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtered by status' which aligns with the 'show' parameter, but provides no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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's purpose: 'List all keyword searches' specifies the verb (list) and resource (keyword searches). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_keyword_search' (singular) but not explicitly from 'list_user_searches' (similar list operation on different resource). The addition of 'Returns a paginated list filtered by status' adds useful scope but doesn't fully differentiate from all alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions filtering by status and pagination, but doesn't compare to siblings like 'list_user_searches' or 'get_keyword_search_posts'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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