Research keywords

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds what the tool returns (search volume and cost estimates), but says nothing about data source limits, freshness, or whether the topic must be supplied elsewhere before calling.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its return payload come first, which is the right order for scanning.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the sentence covers the return content, which is good given no output schema. However, for a tool that clearly expects a subject ('a product or topic'), the absence of any statement about how to supply that input leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke it.

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?

With zero declared parameters the baseline would be 4, but the description asserts the tool works 'for a product or topic' while the schema exposes no named properties (additionalProperties: true), so the agent is left guessing the argument name and format. That ambiguity is a real gap the description does not close.

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?

Clear specific verb (Get) plus resource (Google keyword ideas) with the return payload named (search volume and cost estimates) and scope (a product or topic). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling research_competitor_keywords, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the obvious alternative research_competitor_keywords. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a product or topic'.

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