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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool 'researches' and does not mention whether it is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or returns a specific structure. These omissions leave the agent without clear expectations for side effects or safety.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the core functionality without excess words. Every element adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 low-complexity tool, the description covers the core functionality and indicates the output dimensions (volume, difficulty, CPC, trends, related keywords). It lacks an explicit output schema or further context about optional country parameter, but the description provides enough for basic 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% (country and keyword both have descriptions). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it simply lists the research outcomes, which relate to output rather than input. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Research') with a clear resource ('keyword') and enumerates the data points returned (volume, difficulty, CPC, trends, related keywords). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like backlink_check or rank_tracker.

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 when to use by listing the research outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or cross-references to sibling tools.

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