classify_keywords_simple

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses offline/local regex processing, free usage, and returns multiple analytical attributes. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty input) or performance limitations, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 (5 short sentences), front-loads the purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, outputs, language support, sibling contrast, free status. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and sibling tools are provided, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, key behavioral traits, and language support. The only shortfall is parameter explanation, but for a relatively simple tool, it's adequate.

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. While 'keywords' and 'brand_name' are self-explanatory, the description does not explain how 'brand_variations', 'product_keywords', or 'competitors' affect classification. This leaves a gap in understanding their role.

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 local regex patterns, lists specific outputs (intent, funnel stage, brand type, conversion score, topic), and differentiates from the advanced sibling by noting the free/offline nature. The verb 'classify' and resource 'keywords' are precise.

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?

Explicitly provides context for when to use this tool: 'fast, free, offline.' It contrasts with 'classify_keywords_advanced (paid)' for enhanced detection, and emphasizes 'Free tool - no API key or credits required,' guiding the agent toward appropriate selection.

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