Research keyword opportunities

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

The description discloses that the tool persists data (write operation), returns estimated data with source='estimated', never fabricates exact numbers, and warns not to describe estimated bands as measured. It also mentions a future live provider and reinforces safe use with draft-only tokens. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence carries meaningful detail: purpose, data quality caveats, source handling, and capability safety. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return shape (source='estimated', volume band, KD levels, null exact metrics) and the persistence behavior. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but for a research/persist tool the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and returns.

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% with clear descriptions for seed, seedKind, siteId, and country. The description reinforces that seed can be a keyword or site/URL and mentions Slice A behavior, but does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Research and persist keyword opportunities for a seed keyword or supplied site/URL.' It uses specific verbs (research/persist), names the resource (keyword opportunities), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keyword_add_to_plan or create_posts_from_source by focusing on the research and persistence action.

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 gives clear context that the tool is for research and persistence, and includes a safety note about being safe for a draft-only agent token. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or mention when not to use it, leaving the usage decision mostly implied.

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