get_keyword_suggestions

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 'shows' and 'returns' suggestions, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, what happens with invalid inputs, or how the full-text search behaves. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.

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. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second specifies what it returns. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the geographic information aspect earlier.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks details about the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or how the suggestions are ranked/ordered. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for proper tool selection.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'keyword' generically but doesn't explain the 'se' parameter's country codes or the 'filters' object. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Shows search suggestions for the keyword you requested' and specifies that these suggestions are 'found by the full-text search' and include 'geographic names information'. It uses specific verbs ('shows', 'returns') and identifies the resource (keyword suggestions), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords' or 'get_related_keywords'.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_keywords', 'get_keywords_info', and 'get_related_keywords', there's no indication of when this specific keyword suggestion tool is appropriate versus those other keyword-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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