research_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the returned metrics (volume, CPC, competition level, monthly trends), giving some insight into output, but it omits any details about data freshness, limitations, or whether any action is taken on the system. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and directly lists the return values. It contains no redundant information or unnecessary words, 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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description lists the returned metrics but does not elaborate on the structure or format of 'competition level' or 'monthly trends', nor the default country behavior (though the schema covers that). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on output shape would improve completeness, but the current description is functional.

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%, meaning both parameters (keywords and country_code) are already described in the input schema, including the list of available country codes. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'search volume and competition metrics for keywords', listing the returned metrics (volume, CPC, competition level, monthly trends). This clearly differentiates it from unrelated tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_keyword_trends or get_keyword_difficulty.

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. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer its purpose relative to the many sibling keyword tools.

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