wordstat.hf.suggest_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only mentions cursor resumability. It omits quota/rate-limit behavior (Wordstat APIs are typically throttled), what the output contains, and whether runs are billed. 'Human-friendly' is marketing filler, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The only weakness is that 'Human-friendly:' occupies prime space without conveying actionable information.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never states what a candidate looks like, how many are returned (defaults live only in the schema), or how the cursor phase completes. An agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently beyond the schema.

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 71%, which is high enough that the schema documents most parameters (cursor/seed_phrases exact-one rule, num_phrases defaults/max, max_candidates, max_seed_phrases_per_call). The description adds only 'from seed phrases' and repeats cursor resumability, and leaves devices/regions unexplained in both places.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'suggest keyword candidates from seed phrases'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling wordstat.hf.suggest_negative_keywords, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick for positive vs. negative keyword expansion.

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?

It notes the tool is 'resumable via cursor', which hints at a two-phase flow, but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance relative to suggest_negative_keywords or the other wordstat siblings.

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