get_keyword_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields but omits any side effects, permissions, rate limits, sorting, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The implied nature of a 'suggestion' tool suggests read-only use, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to the core message.

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 description is adequate for a simple suggestion tool, explaining the core function and return values. However, it lacks usage differentiation and behavioral details, and with no output schema it must cover return values, which it does. Still, the gaps in guidance and behavior make it only minimally viable.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and available country codes. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: obtaining keyword suggestions from a seed keyword, and specifies the output (related keywords with volume, difficulty, CPC). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_keyword_ideas or get_related_keywords, which appear to have overlapping purposes.

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. Sibling tools such as get_keyword_ideas and get_related_keywords are not mentioned, and there are no exclusions or contextual hints for ideal usage scenarios.

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