keywords-explorer-volume-by-country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metrics, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The note about using the 'doc' tool adds procedural context but does not describe the tool's behavior during invocation.

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 two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other gives a procedural note. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, but the second sentence about the 'doc' tool, while potentially useful, adds length without enhancing understanding of the tool's use. The structure is clear but could be more focused on usage rather than schema retrieval.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output format. The note to use the 'doc' tool suggests missing information but does not itself provide completeness. For a tool with no structured support, the description should do more to guide effective use.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 'keyword' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean (e.g., format of 'keyword', what 'limit' applies to, default values, or constraints). It only references using another tool to get schema details, failing to add semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves search volume metrics for a specified keyword broken down by country.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('search volume metrics'), and scope ('by country'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keywords-explorer-volume-history' or 'site-explorer-metrics-by-country', which prevents a perfect score.

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 includes a usage note: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This provides some guidance on prerequisites, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other keywords-explorer tools or metrics tools), nor does it specify any exclusions or contextual triggers. The guidance is limited to schema retrieval, not tool selection.

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