Domain Keywords Comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what happens when invoked. It does convey the core behavior: comparing two domains and returning either common keywords or a directional gap. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the default mode is when diff is omitted, or any pagination/ordering behavior—the schema covers those, but the description adds little beyond purpose.

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?

Two sentences with the core comparison front-loaded and the gap definition in the second sentence. It is tight and readable, though 'Analyzes and compares' is slightly generic and the sentence could have started with the specific common-vs-gap behavior.

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 description captures the tool-selection-critical distinction from siblings and the schema fully documents the 10 parameters, making invocation possible. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the agent to infer return shape, default common-mode behavior, pagination, and ordering implications, so it is only minimally complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the roles of domain and compare in the gap analysis, but this largely duplicates the schema descriptions for domain, compare, and diff. It adds no new parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific action ('Analyzes and compares') and resource ('keyword rankings of two websites'), then defines the two supported modes: common keywords and a keyword gap. It explicitly states the gap direction ('domain ranks, compare does not'), which distinguishes it from the sibling domainKeywordsReverseComparison.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—whenever two domains need keyword overlap or gap comparison—and the directional wording helps an agent avoid the reverse-comparison sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is not a 5.

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