keyword-research

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

With no annotations and no behavioral detail in the description, the tool's side effects, data sources, limits, or execution behavior are completely undisclosed. The description provides no value beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loading of useful information because no useful information exists.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the functional context is entirely missing. The definition is inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and none of the five parameters (query, country, language, expansion, maxTimeout) are explained in the description. An agent receives zero information about what each parameter means, expects, or accepts.

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 'V1 Keywords Ideas' merely restates the tool name and provides no verb, resource, or functional detail. It fails to distinguish the tool from its sibling keywords_questions.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus keywords_questions or any other alternative. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to disclose anything. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it mutates state, or any side effects. The phrase 'V1' suggests an early version but adds no behavioral information.

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 extremely short, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It contains no useful information beyond a version marker. There is no front-loading of purpose, no actionable content, and no structure that helps an agent parse the tool's function.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool that needs differentiation, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on the provided information. The description needs to state the operation, the meaning of each parameter, and how it differs from keywords_ideas.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters (query, country, language, maxTimeout). It does not. The description mentions none of the parameters, their formats, defaults, or how they interact. An agent has no way to know what 'query' means, what country/language values are accepted, or what maxTimeout controls.

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 'V1 Keywords Questions' is essentially a version label, not a statement of what the tool does. It names the resource ('keywords') and hints at a question-related operation, but there is no verb describing the action, no scope, and no differentiation from the sibling tool keywords_ideas. An agent cannot tell from this description what invoking this tool will accomplish.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus keywords_ideas. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only signal is the tool name itself, which implies a question-oriented keyword tool, but that is not enough to route an agent correctly.

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