search_intent

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context beyond them: sandbox returns dummy data with no payment, labels come from DataForSEO's classifier, and non-English results aren't guaranteed. However, it doesn't explain why readOnlyHint=false for a lookup call or what the output looks like, leaving a behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then caveats. Every sentence carries useful information (sandbox behavior, classifier source, language limits). Minor redundancy: 'up to 10 keywords' repeats what the schema already enforces.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns (intent labels plus probability) and the key operational caveats. Missing only detail on probability format/range, which is a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-10 items, 80 chars). The description restates the 10-keyword cap but adds no new constraint or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb (search intent) and resource (keywords) and enumerates the four intent categories with probabilities, plus the source (DataForSEO Labs Search Intent). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like keyword_metrics or ranked_keywords, but the scope (intent labels for a keyword list) is unambiguous.

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?

Use is implied: look up intent for a list of keywords. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites stated. The sandbox and language-coverage notes are caveats rather than selection guidance.

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