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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'expand' and 'prioritized', but does not specify read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. Behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks critical details about parameters and behavior. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination, prioritization mechanism, or data source. For a suggestion tool, more context on output and usage is needed for completeness.

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 only 10% (only 'keyword' is described). The tool has 10 parameters, but the description only explains the seed keyword, leaving other parameters like sync, limit, language, and location undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 action ('expand'), the input ('one seed keyword'), and the output ('prioritized long-tail keyword ideas with search metrics'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agentseo_keyword_metrics_overview (metrics for existing keywords) and agentseo_domain_ranked_keywords (domain keywords).

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 implies usage for generating related keyword ideas from a core topic, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when needing existing keyword metrics or domain-level analysis. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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