site-explorer-organic-keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering, sorting, and comparing metrics across dates and regions, which hints at functionality, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a somewhat tangential instruction about using the 'doc' tool, which may not be essential for understanding the tool's function. While not verbose, it could be more streamlined by integrating the procedural note more naturally or omitting it if not critical to usage.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It outlines what data is retrieved but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output structure. For a data retrieval tool with many parameters, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description lists general capabilities like filtering, sorting, and comparing metrics, but does not explain specific parameters such as 'mode', 'order_by', 'volume_mode', or 'where'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely ambiguous.

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 the tool retrieves detailed organic keyword data for domains, URLs, or paths, specifying metrics like rankings, search intent, SERP features, traffic, and CPC. It uses specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('organic keyword data'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-keywords-history' or 'keywords-explorer-overview', which may have overlapping functions.

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 includes a directive to 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides some procedural guidance but does not offer context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving usage unclear relative to other keyword or site exploration tools.

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