keyword_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious trait — the return value is a set of instructions to execute, not a summary to relay — but says nothing about permissions, cost, latency, or determinism, and never confirms it is a read-only/generation operation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and then the handling instruction. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly awkward in phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for return semantics; it partially covers this by stating the return is instructions, but omits the structure and volume of the clusters and how width/region/tongue shape the result. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-output-schema 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 100%, so all four parameters (seed, width, region, tongue) are already documented, including the 1/3/5 constraint on width. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format guidance beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: turning a seed keyword into themed clusters, and enumerates the outputs (long-tail terms, intent, titles, meta descriptions). An agent knows what it produces, but the description never distinguishes it from SEO siblings like competitor_gap or content_refresh.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the seven sibling tools; it never says whether this should be run before article_draft or instead of competitor_gap. The second sentence governs how to consume the output, not when to select the tool.

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