get_keyword_ideas

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that it uses DataForSEO's algorithm and that results include volume, difficulty, and intent, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention any limits, pagination, or data freshness, so some behaviors remain unknown.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action. It avoids redundancy and is efficient, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 is moderately complex with three parameters and no output schema. The description mentions that results include volume, difficulty, and intent, which helps fill the output gap. It doesn't cover pagination or return format, and it lacks usage context relative to siblings, so it's adequate but not complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with defaults and allowed values (100% coverage). The description adds only that the algorithm uses 'seed keywords,' which aligns with the keywords parameter, but it does not provide additional semantics for limit or country_code 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 clearly states the tool generates keyword ideas from seed keywords, using DataForSEO's algorithm, and specifies the output includes volume, difficulty, and intent. This gives it a distinct purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_keyword_suggestions or get_related_keywords.

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 usage when a user has seed keywords and wants related keyword ideas, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. No exclusions or sibling distinctions are mentioned.

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