keyword_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it uses free Google Autocomplete suggestions and optionally cross-references Search Console rankings, and notes no extra API key is needed. However, it does not mention rate limits, whether the Search Console cross-reference requires an authenticated property, or what happens when siteUrl is invalid. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that combines two data sources.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the key differentiator (free, no extra API key). Every phrase earns its place: 'Expand a seed', 'free Google Autocomplete suggestions', 'optionally cross-reference Search Console rankings', and 'no extra API key needed' all convey essential information without waste.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the core behavior and the optional Search Console integration. It is slightly incomplete regarding prerequisites for the Search Console cross-reference (e.g., whether siteUrl must be a verified property) and rate limits, but for a tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 7 parameters. The description adds the high-level concept of 'expand a seed' and 'cross-reference Search Console rankings', which maps to seed and siteUrl, but it does not add detail beyond the schema for parameters like days, limit, country, language, or expansions. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb ('Expand'), a resource ('seed'), and the mechanism ('free Google Autocomplete suggestions'), plus an optional cross-reference to Search Console rankings. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_analytics or search_opportunities by focusing on keyword expansion rather than reporting or auditing.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to expand a seed keyword into ideas, optionally using Search Console data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (search_analytics, ctr_gaps, etc.) makes the use case reasonably clear. A 4 is appropriate because it gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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