Get Master Keyword List for a Niche

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so richly: it enumerates returned fields (volume, relevancy, asinRanks map, origin, latestResearchDate), explains the origin taxonomy in detail, states which origins are removable, and notes that exclusion-hidden keywords are suppressed from results. These are behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 trigger condition, then return shape, then origin semantics and removal rules. Information density is high and little is wasted, though the origin enumeration and cross-references make it noticeably dense, with long compound sentences.

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, so the description must describe return values — and it does so thoroughly (per-keyword volume, relevancy, asinRanks, origin, latestResearchDate). Combined with the exclusion caveat and removal constraints, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single nicheId parameter is already documented as 'from list_niches'. The description adds no further syntax or format detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 and resource — 'Retrieves the master keyword list for the specified Niche' — and immediately scopes it as 'the relevant search terms monitored for ranking and performance metrics.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_keyword_exclusions or get_rank_radar_data without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user asks about keywords, search terms, or search volume for a niche.' It also routes to adjacent tools ('see list_keyword_exclusions', 'add_niche_keywords', 'remove_niche_keywords'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., versus ranking-juice or rank-radar keyword views), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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