keyword_expand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains the workflow: expand the keyword, apply Quick Score to all results, calculate Full Niche Score for the top N, and return ranked opportunities. It does not overpromise or hide the scoring step, though it could clarify what Quick Score and Full Niche Score mean.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and output, with no filler or redundant wording. Every clause adds relevant information.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a complete high-level picture: input, processing steps, and ranked results. It could specify the exact return shape or clarify the scoring metrics, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'top N candidates' loosely maps to fullScoreCount, and 'seed keyword' maps to keyword, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific action ('Expand'), identifies the resource ('seed keyword'), and states the output ('50+ related keywords with Quick Score', 'Full Niche Score for top N candidates', ranked opportunities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_volume, trend, and blog_competition, which address different tasks.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to broaden a seed keyword into related keywords and get niche scores. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.

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