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 discloses that the tool costs $1.50 (x402 on Base), which is a behavioral trait beyond schema. However, it does not state whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or potential errors. The cost is a useful addition, but other behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 compact and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating the purpose, a price line, and a bulleted list of return values. It front-loads the core function and avoids any filler, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return items. The parameter set is simple and fully described by the schema. The inclusion of pricing adds valuable context. Minor gaps, such as the format or type of the returned data, are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats that 'keyword' is the target. For a tool with full schema coverage, this baseline 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 explicitly states the tool's function ('Research keyword metrics') and lists concrete outputs (search volume, CPC, competition, related suggestions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backlink_profile or on_page_audit, which have different focuses.

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 context is implied by the purpose, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons. The agent must infer that keyword metrics are needed.

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