keyword_gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: the call costs 0.05 USDC on Base via x402. However, it omits other behavior an agent needs — read-only nature, pagination/limit behavior, error or payment-failure handling, and the fact that a paid purchase may need explicit confirmation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost appended parenthetically. The em-dash pricing clause is slightly awkward but earns its place by disclosing payment.

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 6-parameter, paywalled tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and pricing but leaves meaningful gaps: it doesn't explain the return shape beyond 'each position', the undocumented limit/language/location parameters, or the locale defaults. Adequate but not complete.

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 only 50%: limit, language_code, and location_code have no schema descriptions at all, and the description never mentions them, so it does not compensate for the gap. Notably the German-market defaults (language_code 'de', location_code 2276) are invisible to an agent unless it opens the raw 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?

Specific verb+resource: it returns keywords that two domains BOTH rank for, plus each position, framed as 'the competitive overlap'. That scope ('BOTH rank for') inherently distinguishes it from single-domain siblings like keyword_metrics and ranked_keywords, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the nature of the output ('competitive overlap' between two domains) and by the required target1/target2 inputs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as keyword_metrics or competitors.

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