Keyword Density Analyzer

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a real behavioral detail worth noting – stop words are ignored and 2-3 word phrases are supported – but says nothing about output shape or ordering beyond 'most repeated'.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the stop-words caveat appended where it belongs.

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?

A read-only analyzer with no output schema and 3 params; the description covers purpose and the stop-word behavior and gestures at returns ('counts and density %'). It stops short of describing the actual return structure or how phraseLength and limit interact, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate. It does map phraseLength (2-3 word phrases) and hints at the text param domain (text/HTML) and the 'most' truncation for limit, but the limit parameter itself, its default of 15, and the max of 50 are never explained.

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 (find the most repeated) with resource (words or 2-3 word phrases in text/HTML) and output format (counts and density %). Clear enough to distinguish from word_counter, though it never names the sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the SEO-analytics framing (keyword density), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer word_counter or other siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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