get_keywords_for_site

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 states the tool 'analyzes site content' and contrasts with get_ranked_keywords, giving some insight into its behavior. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as the need for live crawling, output format, or any operational constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a useful differentiation from a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by stating the purpose and differentiating from a similar tool. However, it does not mention return value characteristics or any prerequisites, which would make it complete. Still, for this simplicity level, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including defaults and a full list of country codes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'keywords a site potentially targets', clearly indicating the tool's function of analyzing site content for keyword opportunities. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_ranked_keywords', which helps differentiate it from similar tools.

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 a clear context: use this tool to discover potential keyword targets from site content, not ranked keywords. It explicitly names an alternative (get_ranked_keywords) but does not elaborate on when not to use this tool beyond that single contrast, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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