get_keyword_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that using the tool consumes 'planner credits,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, auth requirements, or what the response looks like. The cost disclosure earns a midpoint score, but more context would be needed for full transparency.

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 sentence of about a dozen words, front-loaded with the action and resource. The parenthetical detail about planner credits is efficiently integrated. Every word earns its place, and there is zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, all documented) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a 'get' tool. It covers what it returns (ideas and metrics) and flags a cost consideration. It could arguably benefit from a mention of the return format or pagination, but for the tool's complexity, it is sufficiently comprehensive.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate. The main description adds the phrase 'seed keyword' which reinforces the keyword parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. No additional parameter-level detail is provided in the description.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword ideas and metrics') for a provided 'seed keyword'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project_keywords by emphasizing the seed keyword input, and the parenthetical about planner credits adds a distinguishing cost nuance.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description mentions 'uses planner credits' but does not explain when this is appropriate or that other tools like get_project_keywords might be better for retrieving existing project keywords. Usage context is entirely absent.

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