Generate keyword ideas

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's real contribution is the return-shape disclosure: monthly searches, competition, top-of-page bid range, 3-month change, first-to-last change, and monthly volumes. That is genuine added context, particularly valuable since no output schema exists. It omits cost/quota or rate-limit considerations typical of Keyword Planner calls.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the returned metric list. No filler. Slightly dense packing of four input modes into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers both halves well: how you seed it and what each idea carries. Missing only inclusion of the limit/sort/include_monthly toggles, which the high-coverage schema already handles.

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 coverage is 82%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents url, site, limit, network, keywords, language, locations, min_searches, and include_monthly. The description echoes the input modes and names the returned metrics but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

A specific verb ('Get keyword ideas') plus the named source system (Keyword Planner) and the four supported input modes. An agent can tell what it does immediately, though it never references the sibling get_search_volume/forecast_keywords, which overlaps in domain.

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 description implies usage by enumerating valid input combinations (seed keywords, page URL, whole site, keywords + URL), but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings. The 'site can't be combined with keywords or url' exclusion lives only in the schema, not in the description.

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