get_keyword_competitors

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. While it mentions the tool lists domains and shows analysis metrics, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex filtering, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey the core functionality and output details without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining related concepts.

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 5 parameters, complex nested filtering, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, performance characteristics, or how the various metrics (visibility, traffic, relevance) are calculated or interpreted. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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 description mentions 'keyword' and implies filtering capabilities through 'detailed competitor analysis', but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('Lists the domains that rank'), target resource ('for the given keyword in Google top-20 results'), and output details ('detailed competitor analysis including visibility metrics, traffic data, keyword dynamics, and relevance scores'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domain_competitors' by focusing on keyword-based competitor analysis rather than domain-based.

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 like 'get_domain_competitors' or 'get_keyword_top', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. It simply states what the tool does without indicating when it's the appropriate choice.

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