Keyword ideas from Google Autocomplete

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that it uses Google Autocomplete, is free and requires no key, deduplicates results, groups them by prefix, and optionally makes 26 extra requests for alphabet expansion. This enriches the readOnly, idempotent, openWorld behavior already declared in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator, followed by essential parameter guidance and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 description is complete for a read-only suggestion tool: it explains the main behavior, expansion modes, market targeting parameters, output characteristics, and practical use cases. With no output schema, the description still gives enough information about the return shape (deduplicated, grouped by prefix) for an agent to know what to expect.

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 compensates for the two schema parameters lacking descriptions by explaining that 'seed' is expanded and 'questions' enables question prefixes, with concrete examples like how/what/why/best/cómo/qué. It also adds meaningful usage guidance for hl/gl and clarifies the cost of alphabet expansion, adding value beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('seed keyword using Google Autocomplete suggestions'), with concrete details about prefixes and suffix expansion. It clearly differentiates the tool from all siblings, none of which are keyword-suggestion 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, such as for long-tail and FAQ ideas, and includes practical guidance for setting hl and gl to match the market. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings so this exclusion is less critical.

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