keyword_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and conveys the weekly granularity of the data, but says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, quota cost, caching/freshness beyond 'weekly', or what happens for keywords with no data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the data scope and match types come first. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete clause, but nothing is redundant.

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 return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a data-retrieval tool with no annotations and three siblings in similar territory, the definition omits the usage routing and operational constraints an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map all three parameters conceptually (keyword, country, language). However, it adds no format guidance beyond the schema's defaults (e.g. 'us', 'en-US' codes) or behavior when country/language are omitted.

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 names the specific data returned (Bing weekly search impressions), the match dimensions (exact and broad), and the scoping inputs (keyword, country, language). That is enough to identify the resource, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like traffic_trend or search_performance, which also surface search-visibility data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as traffic_trend or search_performance. An agent must guess which of the sibling tools answers a keyword-visibility question.

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