get_related_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits. The output schema may help with return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, so parameters 'site_url' and 'query' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond implying 'query' is the input for keyword generation, but it doesn't explain what 'site_url' does or provide syntax/format details. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Get keywords related to a specific query' clearly states the action (get) and resource (keywords), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_keyword_data' or 'get_keyword_stats'. It specifies 'related to a specific query' which adds some context but remains general.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_keyword_data' or 'get_keyword_stats'. The description implies usage for keyword discovery but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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