get_related_keywords

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that relatedness is based on similar search intent and SERP co-occurrence, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention any other traits like output format, rate limits, or permissions, which for a read-only tool is somewhat acceptable.

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 concise sentences with the main verb front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with three well-documented parameters, the description gives the core idea. However, given the large set of sibling keyword tools, a bit more context on how this is distinct would increase completeness, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema, so it remains at baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets semantically related keywords, defining them as keywords with similar search intent that appear together in SERPs. This is specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_keyword_suggestions or get_keyword_ideas, so not a 5.

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 explicit usage guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The intended use is implied from the description, but there are no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statements.

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