keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates nothing, has no confirm flag, costs one API operation, is rate-limited, sorts results by avg_monthly_searches descending, rounds volumes, and aggregates close variants. This is rich, useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the most important facts: purpose, read-only nature, and cost. Parameter details are grouped logically, and return-behavior notes come last. Every sentence earns its place and the line breaks improve scannability.

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 re-explaining return fields would be redundant. The description covers side effects, rate limiting, ordering, aggregation behavior, defaults, and network scope, which is complete for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains seeds/url constraints, the 20-keyword cap, geo and language defaults, and the meaning of limit. It omits include_zero_volume behavior and does not define customer_id, but those are largely inferable from their titles and defaults, so this is a strong partial compensation.

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 clearly that it returns Keyword Planner ideas with monthly search volume and bid ranges, a specific read-only resource. The READ-ONLY framing actively distinguishes it from the mutating sibling tools like add_keywords and add_callouts.

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 operational context: seeds and url can be used either or both, Google Search network only, no partners, one API operation per call, and a rate limit. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the read-only scope and defaults make the intended use unambiguous.

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