generate_keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool uses Google's Keyword Planner, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only or writes data, any rate limits, cost implications, or authentication requirements. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is excessively terse. It omits critical context that could be added in one or two more sentences, such as the tool's behavioral traits or usage recommendations. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'keyword ideas' entail, how the Google Keyword Planner works, or how the results can be used with sibling tools like 'create_keyword'. The output schema might provide details, but the description should offer an overview.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as indicating that 'url' and 'keywords' are mutually exclusive alternatives. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 states the action ('Generate'), the resource ('keyword ideas'), and the source ('Google's Keyword Planner'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_keyword' and 'get_keywords' by specifying the generation of ideas rather than direct creation or retrieval.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_keyword' or 'get_recommendations'. It does not mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of 'url' and 'keywords', or that it is typically used before creating keywords. The user is left to infer appropriate usage from the schema.

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