ranked_keywords

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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds value beyond them: the 25-result cap, the exact JSON shape (target, total_available, keywords), and the fact that sandbox returns dummy data with no payment. It stops short of stating production cost/credit consumption or rate limits, which is notable for a paid API-backed tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its metric list. The return-shape sentence earns its place because no output schema exists; minor redundancy is the only cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the total_available indicator that signals truncation at 25. Combined with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 domain, language_code, and location_code are already fully documented with defaults, examples, and validation constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no guidance on when to change location_code or language_code), so it sits at the baseline.

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: Google keywords a domain ranks for, with the exact metric columns returned and a hard cap of 25. It is clear about what comes back, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as keywords_for_site, keyword_gap, or keyword_metrics.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description (use it when you want what a domain actually ranks for), and the SANDBOX note gives environmental guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause and no routing to alternatives, which matters given a sibling list containing several keyword-related tools.

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