query_fanout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it generates sub-queries, crawls pages, extracts topics, performs semantic matching, and uses ranking keywords from GSC or DataForSEO. It also notes credit usage. This provides good transparency beyond the input schema, though it does not address rate limits or destructive potential.

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 (four sentences), front-loads the core function, and includes a bullet list for use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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's complexity (multiple steps, data sources, credits) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the process, use cases, and data source options reasonably well. It could include more details on the output format or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's role.

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 only elaborates on 'url' and 'keyword' by stating they are required. 'data_source' is mentioned vaguely ('GSC or DataForSEO'), but default values and the meaning of 'language' and 'gsc_property' are not explained. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, failing to compensate for the lack of schema 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 performs 'Query Fan-Out AI Coverage Analysis' for a URL and seed keyword, detailing the process (fan-out sub-queries, crawling, topic extraction, semantic matching) and use cases (content gap analysis, AI-search coverage). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_url_structure' or 'crawl_website'.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('Use for: content gap analysis, AI-search coverage, sub-topic coverage for a page'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, so it scores slightly below a 5.

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