seo_keyword_density_checker

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It mentions analysis but not side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.

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?

Relatively short but includes redundant first sentence repeating the tool name. The third sentence about describe_tool is helpful but could be integrated. Overall, adequate but not optimally concise.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter options (e.g., mode values), output format, or constraints. Lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 0% with 5 required parameters. Description only hints at 'stopword filter and length controls' (reference to stopwords and minLength) but leaves mode, topN, and text format unexplained. Fails to add sufficient meaning for all parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes raw text or HTML for keyword density, word frequency, lexical diversity, and over-optimization signals. It lists specific output features (unigram, bigram, trigram tables with filters), distinguishing it from sibling SEO tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The suggestion to use describe_tool for full guidance implies more detail is needed, but the description itself lacks direct usage context.

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