rh11_keywords_projection

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, explaining low_demand for sparse keywords, budget tracking with daily_budget and daily_budget_used, cached keywords being free, confidence ranges, and how to interpret third_place_share_basis. This gives substantial behavioral insight 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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then moves through usage, result interpretation, and budget behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the returned structure ({projections, budget}), key fields, confidence handling, and cost semantics. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters (region enum/default and keywords array with max 100). The description adds broader context about what the keywords are used for and confirms the max, but it does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 researches keywords before creating projects and returns per-keyword metrics (size, third-place share, daily purchases needed). It distinguishes itself from project creation and other project-level tools by focusing on pre-launch keyword evaluation.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'compare candidates, size a launch, or check whether a keyword is worth targeting at all' and positions it BEFORE creating projects. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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