kwfinder_competitor_keywords_post

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It only states the HTTP method (POST), which implies a mutation, but provides no details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This is minimal and insufficient for a send operation.

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 sentence with no filler, earning conciseness. However, 'using the POST endpoint' is redundant given the tool's name suggests it, and the brevity sacrifices substantive information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a body parameter with unrestricted additionalProperties. The description does not explain how to construct the request, what fields the body accepts, or what the response returns. For a POST endpoint, this is inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions fully cover all three parameters (url, body, query), with url described as 'Domain or URL to analyze.' The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets competitor keywords for a domain or URL, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It hints at differentiation from the sibling 'kwfinder_competitor_keywords' by mentioning the POST endpoint, though it doesn't elaborate on the method's advantages.

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 POST variant over the GET version (kwfinder_competitor_keywords) or other keyword tools. It lacks any mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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