Keyword ideas from Google Autocomplete

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes the tool is free and requires no key, deduplicates suggestions, and groups them by prefix. It also implies multiple requests via a-z expansion. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It could mention rate limits or external dependency, but the added value is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It packs essential parameter guidance and output characteristics without fluff. Every clause earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key parameters, and high-level output format. It doesn't detail rate limits or the exact response structure, but the description's summary of deduplicated grouped suggestions is sufficient for an agent to understand expected results. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so overall it is reasonably complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 67%, the description compensates by explaining the seed expansion modes (question prefixes, a-z suffix) and providing concrete examples for hl and gl parameters. It does not elaborate on extraPrefixes, but the schema describes it. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 function: expanding a seed keyword via Google Autocomplete, with specific modes (question prefixes, a-z suffix expansion) and output (deduplicated suggestions grouped by prefix). It is specific about the resource and action, and easily distinguished from sibling tools which are mostly audit, crawl, or analytics tools.

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 clear context for using the tool, including language and country parameter guidance with examples, and mentions its utility for long-tail and FAQ ideas. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to other sibling tools, though its distinct purpose makes this less critical.

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