keyword_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source, the nature of the result ('real numbers'), the simplicity of authentication, and the behavioral switch for related:true. It stops short of stating read-only status, pagination, or rate limits, but it is still substantially transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core result and data source lead, the related branch follows, and the default range is stated at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a lookup-style tool with no output schema and full schema documentation, the description covers purpose, authentication, related mode, and date defaults. The main gap is the exact response shape or field names for returned volumes, but this is a minor omission for this tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail. The description adds little beyond restating the related-mode behavior and the trailing-3-months default, both of which the schema already documents.

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?

States exactly what the tool computes: Bing search-impression volume for a keyword over a date range. It also names the related-keywords mode, and its scope is distinct enough from sibling stats tools that an agent can infer what it is for.

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?

Provides useful context such as the default trailing 3-month range, the credential requirement, and the related:true behavior. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over sibling tools like query_stats or page_stats, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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