Related Keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds 'Fetch' and the endpoint. It does not disclose read-only behavior explicitly, pagination behavior, default sorting, response shape, or any side effects, so the agent is left to assume a simple read operation.

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 with no filler and the essential action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it reads more like an endpoint label than a purpose statement, making it concise but not fully appropriately sized for a 20-parameter tool.

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 has 20 parameters, no output schema, and several closely related siblings, yet the description provides none of the extra context needed to invoke it confidently. It omits return structure, pagination expectations, filter semantics, and any differentiation from sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself says nothing about parameters. The schema already documents all optional filters and paging fields, and the description adds no extra meaning to the two required parameters.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Fetch related keywords' tells an agent what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish related from the similar-looking keywordsSimilar or keywordsLongtail siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 text provides no guidance on when to choose this over keywordsSimilar, keywordsQuestions, or keywordsExport, and no exclusions are given. The only context is the endpoint string, which does not help an agent decide among the related-keyword siblings.

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