bing_related_keywords

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it uniquely discloses the data source, the time window, sorting behavior, and the required FREE_SEO_BING_API_KEY. This is valuable operational context; only minor omissions such as result limits keep it from being 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and output ordering. The word 'free' appears twice ('free source' and 'FREE_SEO_BING_API_KEY (free)'), a small redundancy that keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no extra explanation; the description covers the data source, temporal range, sorting, and authentication. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only lookup, though it does not address any rate-limit or pagination behavior.

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?

The description ties 'phrase' to the required keyword parameter and 'last N days' to days, which helps since keyword has no schema description. However, it adds nothing beyond the schema for country or language, and coverage is only moderate (75%).

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?

The description clearly says the tool returns keywords related to a phrase, enriched with real Bing impressions and sorted by impressions. It lacks an explicit verb ('Keywords...' instead of 'Gets keywords...'), and it implies differentiation from sibling keyword tools through the 'free... with numbers' angle rather than naming them.

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?

It conveys an implied use case—when you need free Bing keyword ideas backed by real impression counts—but it never states when not to use it or which sibling (e.g., suggest, bing_keyword) would be an alternative. With 15 sibling tools, more explicit routing would help.

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