kwfinder_keyword_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states that SERP data is included, but does not disclose required parameters, endpoint specifics, pagination, response format, or safety implications. 'Get' implies a read operation, but that is minimal.

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 is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a generic body/query parameter structure, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether keyword is required, what SERP data actually contains, or how this tool relates to the many similar kwfinder siblings. A more complete description is needed.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (body, query, keyword), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate for 'keyword' as a seed or exact keyword.

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 'Get keyword details, including SERP data,' which identifies the resource and a key output. It is distinct from siblings like kwfinder_related_keywords or kwfinder_url_metrics, though 'details' is somewhat generic.

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?

The description implies it is used when keyword details or SERP data are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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