seo_generate_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses async behavior, typical duration (~1–3 min), credit usage, return shape (`{operationId, status}`), polling instructions via get_job, possible job states, and the critical behavior that supplying seeds REPLACES (not merges with) auto-generated seeds. This is highly transparent.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence carries useful information: async nature, cost, return value, polling, seeds behavior, constraints, and next step. It is front-loaded with the step and purpose. Slightly long but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value and lifecycle (poll until completed/failed/partially_failed/cancelled). It covers default behaviors, seed customization, cost, and follow-up tool (seo_categorize). For an async, cost-incurring tool with 3 parameters, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already detailed (e.g., seeds replacement behavior, default brandId, autoScore default). The main description adds minimal extra beyond the schema, but it does emphasize that 'the only other thing the agent can tweak is autoScore' and reinforces the seeds format (3-20 short phrases, 2-4 words, no jargon). This adds a bit of practical context above the baseline.

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 function: 'expands seed keywords into the full keyword universe.' It also positions it as 'Step 2 of the SEO / GEO flow,' distinguishing it from siblings like seo_categorize and seo_generate_roadmap. The verb 'expands' and the resource 'seed keywords' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is 'Step 2' of the flow, and it instructs 'After completion, call seo_categorize.' It also explains when to use the default auto-derivation versus passing seeds: 'By default the server auto-derives... Pass seeds to steer expansion yourself instead.' This gives the agent clear decision guidance for tool usage.

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