gold_keyword_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool needs no API key and that it is paywalled, which are material operational constraints. However, it does not state return shape, rate limits, or scraping behavior beyond naming PAA/Related.

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 compact single sentence that front-loads the core function and data sources, then states the paywall constraint. No filler 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally adequate: it covers purpose, sources, and access. It is missing expected return format, usage boundaries relative to siblings, and any caveats about paid/Pro enforcement or result volume.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and default. The description reinforces the Hebrew/il/iw context and the PAA/Related features, but adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: expanding Hebrew keywords via Google Suggest, plus Related Searches and PAA. It is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like gold_keyword_brief or gold_keyword_gap_scan, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus any of the nine sibling tools. The only usage-related constraint is 'PAID ONLY PRO $29. No free tier.' That is an access gate, not a when-to-use or alternative recommendation.

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