seodata.dev: keyword search volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description still adds real value by disclosing the scope of the reading — quota is per connection, and it is reported on both a daily and monthly window — which the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the plan, the metric, and both time windows are all stated up front. Nothing would be lost by keeping it exactly as is.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is being measured and over which periods. The only shortfall is the absence of any hint about whether the call costs quota itself or how often it should be re-checked.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and makes clear the result is implicitly scoped to the current connection.

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 (show) and specific resources: the seodata.dev plan bound to this connection plus remaining keyword lookups for today and this month. That is clearly distinct from the lookup_keyword(s) siblings, which consume quota rather than report it, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before burning keyword lookups, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before lookup_keywords) or that it takes no arguments and is safe to poll. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that similar keywords and their volumes come back alongside the core metrics, but says nothing about quota/cost per call (likely relevant for a paid keyword API) or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and the scope, the second gives use cases. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, scope and data returned are clear. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation — nothing tells the agent why to call this versus lookup_keywords.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema (including the ISO country pattern and default 'us'). The description only reinforces cardinality ('one keyword in one country'), adding little beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (Google monthly search volume, CPC, competition, similar keywords) with scope 'one keyword in one country'. The 'one keyword' phrasing implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling lookup_keywords, but the alternative is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts — keyword research, sizing demand, comparing topics, picking SEO/content targets — so the agent knows the intent. It offers no exclusions and never says when to prefer the batch sibling lookup_keywords instead, which is the main missed routing cue.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the returned metrics and the batch limit of 25 keywords for one country, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first states what is returned and the batch constraint; the second gives the routing rule. No 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?

For a simple two-parameter batch lookup with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the metrics returned, the 25-keyword limit, the single-country constraint, and when to use it instead of the sibling tool.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the 25-item maximum and the country code pattern. The description reinforces the batch size and single-country scope but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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: it returns monthly search volume, CPC, competition, and similar keywords for keywords in a country. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_keyword by positioning itself as the batch alternative for lists, so an agent can select it 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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this over repeated lookup_keyword calls when comparing or prioritizing a keyword list. The alternative is named and the condition that selects this tool is clear.

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