Extract keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether a URL is fetched server-side, what happens if both url and text are supplied, how topK interacts with keywords vs. bigrams, or what the output format looks like.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The core action and input types are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description omits important operational details such as conflict resolution between url/text, return shape, and network behavior. An agent could call it correctly for simple cases but would be guessing on ambiguous inputs.

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 must compensate. It maps 'URL or raw text' to the url and text parameters, but it leaves topK unexplained and does not clarify precedence or whether topK applies to keywords, bigrams, or both.

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 ('Extract'), names the precise technique ('TF-IDF keywords and bigrams'), and defines the input sources ('URL or raw text'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like content_gap_analysis or readability_score.

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 when to use the tool: when you need keyword extraction from a URL or text. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as content_gap_analysis.

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