LSI words

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

The warning that the operation 'may consume SEO Intellect account limits' is useful non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations. The description does not contradict annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), but it also does not disclose task-creation or polling behavior, which is left to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Upstream API tool: lsi' clause is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the account-limit warning earns its place.

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 a tool with a dual-mode schema (start a task vs continue waiting on task_id) and no output schema, the description is thin: it names the result concept but not the two calling modes or expected return shape. The rich schema partially compensates, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already explains parameters like timeout_ms, wait_for_result, and task_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Collect') and states the exact deliverable ('LSI unigrams and bigrams') and source ('search results'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'semantic' or 'lemma', but the output type is distinct enough.

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 given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as semantic, lemma, or keywords_checker, nor about which of the two schema variants (initial request vs task_id polling) to use. The only contextual hint is 'Upstream API tool: lsi,' which is not a usage condition.

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