classify_keywords_advanced

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, uses an external API, requires an API key, and that credits are dynamic based on keyword count. This gives adequate insight into the tool's behavior and costs, though it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 paragraphs with clear structure: purpose, method, credits, requirements. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 7 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not elaborated, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, output format, or provide examples. For a complex tool making external API calls, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it only lists parameter names without explaining their meaning, format, or examples. 'brand_variations' and 'competitors' are particularly ambiguous. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 classifies keywords using two methods: DataForSEO API and regex. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'classify_keywords_simple' by claiming higher accuracy for intent detection, fulfilling the specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation criteria.

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 indicates when to use (for more accurate intent detection), mentions the required API key and credit dynamic, and suggests checking balance via 'get_account_info'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list all alternatives, it provides sufficient context for appropriate use.

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