keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a paid call (0.03 USDC on Base via x402), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits permission/idempotency behavior and the fact that limit/language/location shape the result, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost caveat appended. No filler, though the parenthetical about pricing could be structured more clearly.

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 partially compensates by naming the return fields (search volume, CPC), and it flags the cost. But five params at 40% coverage, an unexplained default locale, and no sibling routing leave it only minimally adequate for a paid mutation-adjacent 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 coverage is only 40%: only the 'keyword' and 'confirmNewPurchase' params are documented in the schema, and the description adds meaning to neither. It says nothing about limit, language_code, or location_code (defaults de/2276), leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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 ('keyword suggestions for a seed keyword') and enumerates the returned fields (search volume, CPC). This is clear enough to separate it from metric lookups, but it never names or contrasts the close siblings (keyword_metrics, keywords_for_site, keyword_gap), so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description implies you supply a seed keyword, but an agent choosing between keyword_ideas, keyword_metrics, and keywords_for_site gets no routing help.

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