seo_list_keyword_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: unpaginated, ID-only, no keyword data attached, and non-primary role. However, it does not mention the potential for large response sizes or any rate-limiting considerations, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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, followed by usage guidance and examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or fluff. The length is justified by the need to explain the tool's niche role and filter compatibility.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and examples well. Minor gaps include omitting brandId from the filter list and not specifying the exact response format (though 'ids' is implied). Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool context by referencing seo_list_keywords' filter set, but it inaccurately omits 'brandId' from the list and only illustrates two parameters with examples. It does not meaningfully enhance the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool returns 'just the ids of every SeoScoredKeyword matching a filter', explicitly distinguishing it from seo_list_keywords by noting 'unpaginated, no keyword data attached'. This is a specific verb+resource+scope articulation.

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 explicitly frames it as a 'housekeeping op' and provides a concrete use case: selecting all keywords matching a filter, then feeding the returned ids into seo_bulk_delete_keywords or seo_bulk_edit_keywords. It also gives two specific examples (relevanceMax and hasTag), making usage conditions and alternatives clear.

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