get_keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose return behavior ('Optional[Keyword]' and 'None if no data available') and the BingWebmasterTools exception, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this operation has side effects, requires special permissions, or any peculiarities of the returned keyword impression data.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly separated Args/Returns/Raises sections. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse, though it could be more concise in the parameter descriptions.

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?

The description covers the inputs, return type, and failure behavior, which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over similar keyword/query tools, nor does it clarify any prerequisites or expected input formats beyond the schema, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the Args section carries the burden. It explains each of the five parameters, but only superficially: 'The country code' and 'The language code' add some meaning, while 'query' and the date parameters are near-tautological and lack format or constraint details such as expected date formats or language code standards.

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 first sentence clearly states the operation ('Get keyword impressions') and the primary scope ('for a selected period'). It is clear enough on its own but does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools like get_keyword_stats or get_related_keywords.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_keyword_stats, get_related_keywords, or get_query_stats. The description simply restates the function rather than explaining its specific use case.

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