seo_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the returned fields, reveals the data source ('real Google autocomplete data'), and discloses a hard limitation ('No search-volume or competition data; that needs a paid keyword API'). It does not cover auth or rate/token behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the step number and purpose, then structured around inputs and outputs. It is longer than average but nearly every sentence adds usable detail; a small amount of the 'Draft the FAQ...' advice borders on downstream workflow guidance rather than tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the return fields and the tool's limitations, which is exactly the gap it needs to fill. The only real omission is any explanation of the 'include_suggestions' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the required 'title' (headline) and the 'texts' array (facts text from fetch_article_facts), but never explains 'include_suggestions', even though that flag governs whether the autocomplete-derived data is returned.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Mine the keywords this post should target') and places it in a workflow ('Step 4 ... before drafting'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like seo_audit and build_schema, which it feeds rather than replaces.

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 sequencing ('before drafting') and precise inputs ('Pass the headline plus the text of the facts returned by fetch_article_facts'), plus the downstream routing to build_schema and seo_audit. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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