get_keyword_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the 'detailed data' takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only 2 parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter context. The description works adequately but leaves the agent to make assumptions about parameter formats and tool behavior.

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 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'keyword/query' which maps to the 'query' parameter, but provides no information about the 'site_url' parameter or what format either should take. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('Get detailed data') and resource ('for a specific keyword/query'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keyword_stats' or 'get_query_stats', but the focus on 'detailed data' provides some distinction. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand this retrieves information rather than modifies it.

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 like 'get_keyword_stats', 'get_query_stats', or 'get_related_keywords'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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