get_ranked_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It claims 'all keywords' but the schema includes a 'limit' parameter (default 100), which is not disclosed. It also omits any mention of pagination, data freshness, or other operational behavior, which is a gap for a retrieval tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the key output details without waste.

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?

While the description conveys the core function, it lacks any explanation of how this tool differs from the similarly named sibling 'get_keywords_for_site' or 'get_domain_rank'. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent receives insufficient detail about result format, limits, or selection criteria, making the context incomplete.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does imply that the result includes positions, URLs, and volumes, which aligns with parameters.

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: retrieving all keywords a domain ranks for in Google, with positions, URLs, and search volumes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on suggestions, ideas, or 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 use case is implied: use when you need actual ranking keywords for a domain. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose, especially since 'get_keywords_for_site' sounds very similar.

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