keyword_metrics_multi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the payment model (0.15 USDC on Base via x402) and that one call replaces N per-location purchases. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return format, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the cost detail. Nothing to trim.

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, and the description compensates by covering scope and the cost model an agent needs to reason about spending. It leaves the return shape and auth unaddressed, but for a read-style metrics lookup that is a minor 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 75%, so the schema already documents keywords, location_codes (with per-location pricing), and confirmNewPurchase. The description only corroborates "one keyword set" and the per-location cost, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields, 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 concrete resource (search volume, CPC, competition) with a precise scope: one keyword set across up to 30 locations in a single call. The multi-location/single-payment framing distinguishes it from the keyword_metrics sibling notionally, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"One payment instead of one per location" implies when this is preferable to a per-location alternative, giving implied usage guidance. However, no alternative is named, no when-not conditions are given, and no prerequisite for setting location_codes is stated.

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