keyword_density

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the payment requirement of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a useful cost constraint, but it fails to describe the tool's behavior, return format, side effects, or prerequisites. The disclosure is minimal.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrases 'Other Utilities tool' and the cost add no substantive information about the tool's function, so the brevity is detrimental.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a generic input schema, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, input, output, or prerequisites, making it completely inadequate for an agent 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?

The input schema has a single generic 'params' object described only as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which gives no specific parameter information. The description does not compensate by explaining what parameters are expected, leaving the agent completely unaware of how to structure the input.

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 merely restates the tool name 'keyword density' and categorizes it as an 'Other Utilities tool' with a cost. It does not state what the tool actually does, such as calculating the density of keywords in text. This is a tautology that adds no functional clarity.

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 similar text-analysis siblings like word_frequency or word_count. It only mentions cost, leaving the agent without any context for appropriate usage.

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