keyword_get

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds the useful notion of current-state verification, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or how the live state differs from preview endpoints.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the key scoping information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-by-ID tool.

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 tool has annotations covering safety and an output schema, and the schema fully documents parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete, though it could have explicitly clarified the legacy ID versus keywordId choice for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description only says 'by ID' and does not clarify the relationship between the optional legacy 'id' and 'keywordId' parameters, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: read one targeting keyword by ID. The phrase 'for current-state verification' also implies a read of live state versus list or preview operations, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as keywords_query.

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 phrase 'for current-state verification' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus keywords_query, keyword_update_preview, or negative_keyword_get. The agent must infer the appropriate boundary.

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