keyword_difficulty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It only states the basic action (get difficulty) but does not mention what the output looks like, whether it is a number or label, or any constraints like rate limits or data freshness. This is insufficient for a tool without output schema.

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 of 8 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should compensate by explaining the difficulty metric, return format, or common use cases. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what the response contains and how to interpret it.

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 two parameters (keyword, country) with zero description coverage. The description only mentions 'the specified keyword', adding minimal meaning for that parameter. It does not explain the 'country' parameter's purpose or default behavior, nor does it provide any additional context beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'keyword difficulty', clearly indicating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_backlinks_list and get_traffic by focusing on difficulty. However, it does not specify what the difficulty metric represents (e.g., score range), which slightly reduces 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 the sibling tools (get_backlinks_list, get_traffic, keyword_generator). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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