keyword_ideas_from_url

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

No annotations are present, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The agent has no insight beyond 'generate'.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary information for brevity.

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 high parameter count (11), no schema descriptions, no annotations, and the existence of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover usage, parameter roles, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It only implies the 'url' parameter via the tool's name and description, but ignores the other 10 parameters (e.g., customer_id, language_id, filters). This adds minimal semantic value.

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 action ('generate') and the output ('keyword ideas') and specifies the source ('UrlSeed'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'keyword_ideas_from_keywords' or 'keyword_ideas_from_site', leaving ambiguity about when to use this URL-based variant.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., when a URL-only input is available). No usage context, prerequisites, or examples are provided.

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