Domain Keywords Comparison

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the comparison logic and diff modes but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is honest but incomplete for behavioral expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality and usage well. It covers the main use cases but could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or return format, though those are in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'domain' and 'compare' by explaining their roles in the gap analysis, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'cols' or 'order_field' beyond what the schema provides.

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 it analyzes and compares keyword rankings of two domains, with explicit modes for common keywords and keyword gap. The swapping advice clarifies how to get the reverse gap, distinguishing it from single-domain tools like DATA_getDomainKeywords.

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 explains when to use diff=0 vs diff=1 and provides a workaround for the reverse gap. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like DATA_getDomainCompetitors, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for pairwise comparison.

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