check_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral nuances: literal case-insensitive matching, whitespace not normalized, and the special rule for highest-search-volume terms. It stops short of describing the return value, but the core verification behavior is clearly explained.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, threshold behavior, and matching semantics with no filler. The most important action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Input semantics are well covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns (boolean, counts, missing keywords, etc.). Minor edge cases like empty keyword maps or invalid HTML are also unaddressed, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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 description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining how keyword search volumes determine which terms require primary_min_hits. It also clarifies that term matching is literal and case-insensitive, which directly informs how the keywords map is interpreted. Other parameters rely on the schema, but schema coverage is already high.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Verify that target keywords actually appear in a rendered page.' It is easily distinguished from siblings such as check_translation, check_internal_links, and check_claims, which address different page qualities.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to confirm keyword presence in rendered HTML. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, so routing guidance is weak.

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