get_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('displays its search volume, CPC, and competition level') but lacks critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 8 parameters and complex filtering, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second specifies the output metrics. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for complex parameter guidance.

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 8 parameters, complex nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, how filtering/sorting works, what the response structure looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the 'keyword' parameter implicitly and hints at output metrics that correlate with some filterable fields. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what's in the structured 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 tool's purpose: 'Shows organic keywords related to the researched keyword for which domains rank in Google top 100.' It specifies the action ('shows'), resource ('organic keywords'), and scope ('Google top 100'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_related_keywords' or 'get_keyword_suggestions'.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools, suggest scenarios for usage, or indicate prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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