keyword_ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the two-request-per-seed cost/pacing, deduplication of queries appearing under multiple seeds, per-idea seed attribution, and the breakouts-first sort order for rising ideas.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by deduplication/sorting behavior and cost. The line 'an idea related to several seeds sits at the centre of the subject' is slightly decorative but still conveys that multi-seed ideas are signals.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cost/merge/sort behavior is well covered. What is missing is guidance on the five undocumented filter parameters (geo, timeframe, category, property, limit), which matters for a 6-parameter tool.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially does so. It constrains `seeds` to at most 5 terms and explains the merge semantics, but geo, category, property, timeframe, and limit are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource (related/rising keyword queries) and a specific verb-like output ('Keyword ideas from what people actually search next'), naming the two result flavors (rising and top). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling related_queries, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: feed it up to 5 seed terms to get merged idea lists. There is no statement of when to prefer this over related_queries, trending_now, or keyword_overview, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the seed count constraint.

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