Get cost estimate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already communicate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the anonymous endpoint detail and clarifies that provider defaults to dataforseo, plus openWorldHint=false indicates a closed model with known provider keys. No contradictions with annotations. Description adds reasonable context but doesn't describe output/return structure or error cases.

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 well-organized sentences: what it estimates, required inputs, and provider/rate-card selection with a pointer to the sibling tool. Zero filler, efficient front-loading of purpose and key parameters.

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?

Complete for a read-only estimation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers inputs, provider defaults, rate-card lookup path, and the anonymous nature. Missing is an indication of output shape, but since there is no output schema and readOnlyHint covers safety, it's adequately complete. Slightly more return-format context would push it to 5.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, ranges, and enums. The description reinforces key semantic details (provider defaults to dataforseo, frequency maps to monthly checks, see get_provider_rates for keys) but the schema carries most of the weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+scope (estimate monthly rank-check cost for keyword portfolio). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like get_provider_rates (referenced directly) and research_keywords. Clear that it's a cost-estimation computation, not a live rank check or pricing lookup.

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?

Gives clear input guidance (keyword count, devices per keyword, locations, frequency) and explicitly directs the user to get_provider_rates for available keys. States the anonymous endpoint nature. Could be stronger on explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance, but the cross-reference to get_provider_rates differentiates it well from a pure rate-card lookup.

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