get_keywords_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it queries, whether it has rate limits, what format results return, or any other behavioral characteristics. The single sentence gives no operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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 certainly concise - a single French sentence. However, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded (there's only one sentence), it doesn't earn its place by providing any meaningful information beyond the tool name.

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 complex tool with 22 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool actually does operationally, how to use it effectively, what results to expect, or how it differs from similar tools. The agent would be flying blind with this level of documentation.

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?

With 22 parameters and only 18% schema description coverage (only 4 parameters have descriptions), the description adds zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what any of the numeric ranges mean (competition, CPC, KGR, KVI, volume, etc.), what 'exact_match' versus 'include/exclude' do, or how the filtering logic works. The description fails completely to compensate for the massive schema documentation gap.

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 'Obtenir la correspondance des mots-clés' (Get keyword matches) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_keywords_match' in French. It doesn't specify what kind of matching occurs (semantic, exact, related keywords?), what resource is being queried, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_find', 'get_keywords_related', or 'get_keywords_similar'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 10+ other keyword-related tools on the server. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have no way to determine when this specific keyword matching tool is appropriate versus 'get_keywords_find' or 'get_keywords_related'.

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