find_keyword_opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: it explicitly states that no metrics (volume, CPC, SERP, difficulty) are fabricated, and discloses a cost of $0.05 USDC. These are beyond annotations and help the agent set expectations.

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 that conveys the core function, a key constraint, and the cost. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a clear schema and annotations. The description covers the key behavioral aspects (output type, no fabrication, cost). A return format is not specified, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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%, with all three parameters already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: generating and prioritizing long-tail keyword opportunities. It specifies the resource (long-tail keyword opportunities) and the action (generate and prioritize), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_competitor_content_gaps or find_internal_link_opportunities.

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 any context in which this tool should be preferred or excluded, leaving the agent to infer from the name and siblings.

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