keyword_difficulty

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 but only states the basic action without details on rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or return format (e.g., numerical score, categorical rating). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in keyword analysis.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's overly brief to the point of under-specification, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably use this tool in context with its siblings.

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 but only implies the 'keyword' parameter without explaining its format or constraints. The 'country' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving both parameters poorly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Get keyword difficulty for the specified keyword' clearly states the tool's function (retrieving difficulty metrics for keywords) but lacks specificity about what 'difficulty' entails (e.g., SEO competition, search volume complexity) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'keyword_generator' or 'get_traffic'. It's a vague purpose that could be more precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keyword_generator' for generating keywords or 'get_traffic' for traffic data. There's no mention of prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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