semrush_keyword_overview

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 it only lists outputs. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether API keys or quotas apply, how database selection affects results, or what rate limits exist. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but no meaningful behavioral detail is added beyond that.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists the key output metrics in a readable em-dash list without redundancy or filler.

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 simple three-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the tool's purpose and the expected data categories. It omits external-service context like authentication or rate limits, but those are not essential for understanding how to invoke the tool. Given the low complexity and rich schema, the definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 keyword, database, and format. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond stating the output metrics; it doesn't clarify how database codes map to regions or how format affects response structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('keyword metrics from Semrush'), and enumerates the exact metric types returned: volume, difficulty, CPC, and SERP features. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like semrush_domain_overview, which targets domain-level data rather than keyword data.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling research tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context such as 'use for keyword research rather than domain overview'. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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