estimate_keyword_difficulty

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

The description discloses the algorithm's inputs (views/day, channel size, video age) and notes it operates without proprietary data, adding useful behavioral context beyond basic purpose. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden; while it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, these are less critical for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every phrase earns its place, including the VidIQ comparison and the summary of methodology. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and while the description indicates a numeric score, it does not describe the full response structure or how parameters like maxVideos and regionCode affect the score. The description explains the inputs to the calculation but lacks details on edge cases or interpretation. For a relatively simple tool with few parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters themselves, so it does not enhance what the schema already offers. 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 clearly states the tool calculates a keyword difficulty score (0-100) for YouTube ranking, using the verb 'calcula' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning as a replacement for VidIQ's Competition Score, a unique feature among the listed tools.

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 assessing keyword difficulty, mentioning it analyzes views/day, competitor channel size, and video age. It also provides context by stating it replaces VidIQ's proprietary tool, offering a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_keyword_stats or find_trending_keywords, so some inference is needed.

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