keyword_magic_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of best keywords' but does not disclose how results are sorted, any rate limits, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, which is a gap for an agent.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core value proposition ('Find millions of keyword suggestions') and immediately states the input/output. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must sufficiently explain usage and returns. While it mentions generating a keyword list, it omits the required 'country' parameter, which could mislead an agent into thinking only a topic is needed. The description is not complete enough for confident 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with example values for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the term 'topic' for the 'keyword' parameter and says nothing about the required 'country' or optional 'languagecode' parameters, so it does not enhance meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find millions of keyword suggestions for your SEO.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('keyword suggestions'), and the action is distinct from siblings like 'keyword_overview_analysis' (analysis) and 'questions' (question generation).

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 implies usage for keyword research ('Enter a topic and get your list of best keywords'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it earns an 'implied usage' score rather than a clearer contextual guideline.

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