Copywriter brief checker

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

Annotations already provide safety hints, and the description adds a useful cost/quota warning: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits.' However, it omits the significant async/task behavior, such as returning a task_id when wait_for_result is false and later polling with that task_id.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds an important quota warning, though the 'Upstream API tool: keywords-checker' detail is mildly redundant for tool selection purposes.

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 tool has two distinct invocation modes (submit text vs. poll an existing task) and no output schema, but the description does not explain the task lifecycle, wait_for_result behavior, or timeout semantics. An agent could incorrectly treat this as a simple synchronous text-checking call.

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 description adds some semantic mapping by connecting 'strict', 'lemmatized', and 'additional' to the strict_words/strict_count, lemma_words/lemma_count, and add_words/add_count parameter families. Given the reported high schema description coverage, this meets the baseline, though the description does not explain how counts and words interact or when task_id/timeout parameters are relevant.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Check strict, lemmatized, and additional keyword occurrences in text.' It names three specific modes, which helps distinguish it from generic text-analysis siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related copywriter_brief tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like copywriter_brief, text_analyze, or lemma. The description also does not mention the two invocation modes visible in the schema: submitting text versus polling an existing task_id with timeout parameters.

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