get_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes credit consumption and API key necessity, but lacks details on mutation, rate limits, or output behavior. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: first stating purpose, second adding usage notes. It is appropriate in length for a tool with 3 parameters, though more parameter details could be included without being verbose.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides essential purpose and usage context but omits behavioral details like pagination, error handling, or credit cost specifics. It is moderately complete for a simple tool.

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%, yet the description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., domain, location, limit). It does not explain default values, allowed input formats, or how parameters affect results. The description should compensate for the schema's lack of 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 retrieves top ranking keywords for a domain, specifying fields like volume, position, and URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., classify_keywords_* or get_backlinks) by focusing on ranking data.

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 mentions API key requirement and variable credits, advising to check balance via get_account_info. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the context implies it's for obtaining keyword rankings, not classification or analysis.

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