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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic function and provides no information about return format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. Since it's a retrieval tool, the read-only nature is implied but not stated, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is efficient and easy to parse, earning a high score for 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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully covers parameters, but the description lacks any mention of output structure or behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what 'Get keywords' returns. The description provides enough for a basic keyword lookup but fails to elaborate on limitations or use cases, leaving it somewhat incomplete.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly: 'keyword' as the seed keyword and 'num' as the number of results with a max of 1000. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Get People Also Search For keywords based on a seed keyword' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It implies the input is a seed keyword, matching the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_related_keywords, but the PASF terminology is specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_related_keywords or get_keyword_data, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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