enrich_businesses_website_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields but does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or assumptions (e.g., that the company must have a website). The lack of behavioral warnings is a gap.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with purpose, explains input format, then lists outputs. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and outputs. However, it lacks edge-case details (e.g., what 'Keywords indicator' returns) and doesn't mention that the tool works only for companies with websites.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that comma-separated terms simulate AND logic for keywords, and it describes the output fields. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, though business_ids is not further elaborated.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get website keywords for public companies.' It explains the use of multiple search terms with AND logic and lists the return data, making it distinct from sibling tools like enrich_businesses_website_changes.

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 (e.g., enrich_businesses_website_changes). It explains how to input keywords but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use.

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