Get Keyword Search Volume

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds details on return fields and output format, which is useful but does not contradict annotations. It could mention rate limits or auth, but not required given read-only nature.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, arguments, return structure, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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 has 3 parameters with schema coverage 100% and an output schema exists. The description covers all necessary information: what it does, parameters, return fields, and when to use it versus siblings. It is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of response_format (human reading vs structured processing) and listing market codes explicitly. It also clarifies keyword length constraints, though schema already has them.

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 it fetches monthly search volume, CPC, year-over-year change, peak month, and seasonality for a single keyword. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('search volume' for a keyword), and distinguishes from the sibling batch tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need volume/CPC/seasonality for ONE keyword. For multiple keywords, use marketing_miner_batch_search_volume.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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