generate_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses nothing about side effects, whether results are persisted, expected output shape, or any rate limitations. It only states that it generates keywords, leaving the behavior opaque.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter explanation in a compact Args block. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear purpose and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and parameter constraint, though lacks behavioral details; however, those are already captured in other dimensions, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 description adds meaning to the parameter by specifying it must be 'a previously generated product idea', clarifying that it is not an arbitrary ID. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added context is valuable.

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 'Generate SEO keywords for a product idea', using a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like generate_tags or generate_listing by specifying 'SEO keywords'.

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 usage after a product idea is previously generated (e.g., 'The ID of a previously generated product idea'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the prerequisite is clear.

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