compare_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting any side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, or output format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to include critical behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output represents (e.g., a chart or time series), any limitations (e.g., rate limits), or how the tool interacts with other systems. This leaves the agent with incomplete information.

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 description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., the 'keywords' constraint is already in the schema). Baseline score of 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 ('compare') and resource ('search interest over time') with a clear constraint ('up to 5 keywords'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_related_queries' and 'get_interest_by_region' which handle different aspects of search data.

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 implies usage for comparing keyword trends over time, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It gives no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer.

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