keyword_opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds credit cost (4 credits) which is useful behavioral info beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second lists outputs and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description covers return values (difficulty, rank, volume, competitor info). Missing pagination or limit details, but for a read-only tool with annotations, it's adequately complete for selection.

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 has 100% coverage for 3 parameters. Description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what schema provides (e.g., category defaults to business name). Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states it finds local keyword opportunities and specifies outputs (difficulty scores, rank, search volume, competitor info). Differentiates from siblings like 'keyword_suggestions' by emphasizing local and including rank/competitor data.

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 guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools. Only mentions credit cost, which is a general constraint, not usage context. With many related tools, lack of 'when-to-use' or 'alternatives' is a gap.

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