get_domain_uniq_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data ('Returns unique keywords'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema). This is inadequate for a tool with complex parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and provide a contextual analogy ('Equivalent to a Domain vs domain report'). It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the second sentence could be more informative. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format, pagination behavior, or how filters interact with domain comparisons. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation and result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool compares domains ('two domains' vs 'third domain'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Returns unique keywords of two domains for which a third domain does not rank.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('unique keywords'), and scope ('two domains' vs 'third domain'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain_keywords' or 'get_keywords', which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Equivalent to a Domain vs domain report,' which hints at a use case but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_domain_keywords' or 'get_keywords_info' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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