Project keyword board

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the conditional behavior it discloses: popularity is only real when a provider is connected, hidden keywords are excluded unless section=hidden/all, and only the main market is returned when more than 4 markets are tracked. Those are genuine caveats an agent would otherwise miss; only pagination/truncation behavior is left unstated.

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 return-shape summary is front-loaded and the conditional rules follow, with no filler sentences. It is dense and reads as a long run-on clause chain, which slightly hurts scanability but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so field by field, including the estVol/estDiff vs pop distinction and competitor inclusion. It is nearly complete; only result-size/pagination expectations are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents every parameter, including defaults for markets, section, sort and limit. The description restates the markets and hidden-section defaults rather than adding new syntax or semantics, so it sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Keyword x market grid for one project') plus the exact result shape (rank, estVol/estDiff, pop, verdict, opportunity, top competitors). That is far more than the title and lets an agent tell this apart from get_term_detail (single term) or get_overview without opening the 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when / not when' guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. Usage is only implied by the described content (a board-level view of all keywords in a project), and the market/section rules read as behavior rather than selection advice.

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