search_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that this is a read operation on an external API and describes the return payload (PC/mobile breakdown, CPC competition index, top 20 related keywords). However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, which matter for an external API call.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and data source; the second efficiently enumerates the return values. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. It's slightly thin on operational context (auth, rate limits) but those are minor for a simple keyword lookup, so it's reasonably complete for its complexity.

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% — the single 'keyword' parameter is already described as 'Keyword to search' with min/max length constraints in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for the parameter itself, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get monthly search volume from Naver SearchAd API.' The purpose is clear and distinct from siblings like trend, niche_score, and blog_competition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from keyword_expand, which could plausibly also surface volume data, so a name-level distinction is left to the agent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, no mention of which sibling to prefer for broader keyword research vs. single-keyword volume checks, and no context about prerequisites or limits (e.g., single keyword only, one at a time). The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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