keyword_ideas

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

The description describes the tool as free, using Google Suggest, and returning only related queries (no volume). With no annotations, this provides basic behavioral context, but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors, which would be helpful for safe invocation.

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, concise sentence that packs all necessary information (purpose, source, limitations) without any redundancy or filler. It is well front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: source, free nature, and data limitation. It could mention response format or even a note on rate limiting to be fully complete, but it covers essentials well.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, only reiterating the seed term. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'related keyword/query ideas for a seed term' via Google Suggest. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and the context of 'free; related queries only, no search volume' distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_page or check_robots.

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 mentions it is free and returns only related queries without search volume, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for volume data, missing a small opportunity for guidance.

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