DataForSEO MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the data source and scope (keyword trends), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that state the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with additional context about data sources. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how results are structured, or provide any context about the DataForSEO Trends service. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more contextual information is needed.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide usage examples, or clarify relationships between parameters like 'time_range' and 'date_from/date_to'.

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 purpose: 'provide keyword popularity data from DataForSEO Trends' with specific data sources (Google Search, News, Shopping). It uses a specific verb ('provide') and resource ('keyword popularity data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kw_data_google_trends_explore' which might offer similar functionality.

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 mentions what data sources are available (Google Search, News, Shopping), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kw_data_google_trends_explore' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases.

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