gold_keyword_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source ('free suggest engine'), the cost constraint ('PAID ONLY $29'), and the generated output structure. It does not mention rate limits or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the framing makes the main behavior clear.

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 and front-loads the core deliverable before adding cost/source context. The 'POWER:' prefix is promotional noise, but the rest is economical and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with only one required parameter, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and decide to call it. Minor gaps include the lack of detail on how lang/region influence output and no mention of return format, but these are secondary for selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the meaning of 'seed' ('seed keyword') but gives no semantics for 'lang' or 'region', such as accepted formats, possible values, or how they affect the suggest engine.

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 states a concrete deliverable ('one-page content brief') built from a 'seed keyword' and lists the exact sections included (H1/title/meta formulas, H2 outline, word-count band, internal-link anchors). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gold_keyword_expand, which is about expanding keywords rather than producing a brief.

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?

When to use it is implied: call it when you need a content brief from a seed keyword. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer siblings such as gold_keyword_expand or gold_cluster, so the agent must infer routing from the output description.

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