keyword_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states what the tool does without revealing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or output format. This leaves critical operational details unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity of a keyword generation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. This inadequacy could hinder effective tool invocation by an AI agent, as key contextual information is missing.

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 description mentions 'specified keyword' but does not explain the semantics of any parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and three parameters (keyword, country, search_engine), the description fails to add meaning, such as the purpose of country codes or supported search engines. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose ('Get keyword ideas for the specified keyword'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword ideas'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'keyword_difficulty' or explain what 'keyword ideas' entails (e.g., related terms, search volume). This makes it minimally adequate but lacking specificity.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'keyword_difficulty' or 'get_traffic', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions (e.g., for SEO research vs. content planning). Without such information, users must infer usage, leading to potential misapplication.

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