inspect_keyword

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

The description discloses quota implications (inspecting tracked keywords does not consume quota) and provides a detailed list of return values. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false is fine; the tool may have side effects like quota usage, but that is disclosed). It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the quota nuance, which is important for agents.

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 concise but thorough, covering the tool's purpose, the data returned, and a specific behavioral note (quota). It is front-loaded with the main action and then details. It could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and informative.

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 is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema. It enumerates all major return elements (difficulty, traffic, KEI, top 20 apps with specific attributes, suggestions, tracking status) and mentions the quota policy. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect from 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with all four parameters clearly described. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates that 'keyword' is the target. Since schema coverage is complete, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Deep-analyze any keyword' and lists exactly what it returns (difficulty_score, traffic_score, KEI, top apps, related suggestions, tracking status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like track_keywords and list_keywords by specifying it analyzes keywords even if untracked, and focuses on deep analysis rather than tracking or listing.

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 when to use: when you need deep analysis of any keyword, even untracked ones. It also mentions the quota behavior, indicating that inspecting tracked keywords is free. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know it's different from tracking or listing tools.

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