get_keyword_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'analyzes keyword' by explaining how difficulty is estimated (channel size and video age) and that it suggests angles with less competition. This provides useful context about the tool's methodology, though it does not mention any limitations, rate limits, or exact response structure.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the main outputs clearly. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does a reasonable job of explaining what the tool returns (top videos, difficulty estimate, angle suggestions). It does not detail the exact response structure or how to interpret the difficulty metric, but it provides enough context for the core use case.

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 fully covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any extra detail about maxVideos or regionCode beyond what the schema already provides, but it reinforces the keyword parameter implicitly through the phrase 'Analisa uma keyword'.

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 analyzes a keyword on YouTube and returns three specific outputs: top ranked videos, difficulty estimate based on channel size and video age, and low-competition angle suggestions. This is a specific verb+resource with a well-defined scope that distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like estimate_keyword_difficulty or suggest_hook_angles.

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 the tool is for a comprehensive keyword analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of more specialized sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. A clear use case is present, but alternative tool guidance is absent.

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