keyword_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: volumes come from Google Keyword Planner, competition is on a 0-1 advertiser scale rather than SEO difficulty, and the provider is Keywords Everywhere. It does not mention rate limits or freshness of the trend data, keeping it from a 5.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with purpose and outputs, followed by a short data-source/definition note and an Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the Args block partially restates schema fields (keyword, country default) rather than only adding the example and semantics.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents (volume, CPC, competition, trend) and the metric definitions an agent needs to interpret results. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though guidance on when to choose it over sibling research tools would round it out.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: `keyword` is documented with a concrete example ("best crm software") and `country` is explained as a two-letter country code with a stated default of "us". It adds real meaning beyond the bare type/default in the schema, though it does not specify accepted country-code format edge cases.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (research a keyword) and enumerates the exact outputs: monthly search volume, CPC, ad competition, and a 12-month trend. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening a schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like web_research_tool or aeo_prompt_volume, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use it by naming the data source (Google Keyword Planner) and clarifying that `competition` is advertiser competition, not SEO ranking difficulty, which prevents a common misuse. However, it never states when to prefer this over a sibling research tool or any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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