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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output types and the news-context source, providing moderate transparency. However, it does not explain result limits, whether the tool modifies anything, or the exact behavior when optional parameters are omitted.

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 that front-loads the purpose and outputs. It contains zero filler and is immediately understandable.

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 is simple, with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core function and outputs, but it does not clarify what happens when the optional keyword is absent, nor specify the return format. This leaves some ambiguity for a complete understanding.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive entries for both parameters (lang has a default and allowed values, keyword has an example). The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 clearly defines the tool as performing keyword research, listing output types (related words, compound keywords, LSI keywords) and a specific source context (news). This differentiates it from siblings like competitor_seo or backlink_check. However, it lacks a clear verb such as 'generates' or 'retrieves,' making it slightly less explicit.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies use for keyword discovery, but there are no explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools for comparison.

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