keyword_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds that it combines Serpstat and Keywords Everywhere data, which hints at external dependencies, but it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or response format. This is mild added value beyond annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for data sources, and an Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key purpose, metrics returned, and primary parameters/defaults. It stops short of describing the exact output structure or edge cases like unavailable data, but it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains keyword with a concrete example and country with format and default. However, the config parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for one of the three parameters.

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 opens with 'Research a keyword' and enumerates concrete outputs: search volume, CPC, competition, difficulty, and trends. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like keyword_rankings or google_trends by focusing on a single keyword's aggregate metrics.

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 implies usage when you need keyword market metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over keyword_planner or google_trends, nor does it mention exclusions. The Args section gives practical defaults, but no alternative-comparison guidance.

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