Export Keywords Metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the HTTP method (POST) and that source is in the query string, which is useful technical context. However, it does not describe response shape, pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 packs in the core action, the endpoint, the HTTP method, and a key transport detail. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like and provide more behavioral context. It names the endpoint and action but leaves the agent without enough information to know what to expect back or how the export behaves at scale. With 5 parameters and rich schema coverage, this minimal description is insufficient for full autonomous invocation confidence.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including defaults and formats. The description adds a small technical detail by noting 'source in query' and 'POST form-data', but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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: bulk retrieve metrics for a list of keywords. It also includes the endpoint path, giving concrete specificity. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling keyword tools like keywordsSimilar or keywordsLongtail, but the 'bulk retrieve metrics' phrasing makes its core purpose evident.

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 such as keywordsSimilar or keywordsRelated. It implies use for known keyword lists, but never states scenarios, exclusions, or why this tool should be preferred over a sibling.

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