kwfinder_keyword_imports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get metrics,' which suggests a read operation, but the tool name includes 'imports' and the schema has generic body/query pass-throughs, implying potential side effects such as quota consumption or list creation. No such behavior is disclosed.

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 free of filler. It earns its place by stating the tool's core purpose in eight words.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values, request format, or side effects. It is too sparse to fully inform an agent on how to invoke the tool correctly, especially with generic body/query parameters and no stated required fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds marginal meaning by using 'imported keywords,' which loosely maps to the keywords array, but it does not clarify how language_id/location_id affect results or how body/query override parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('metrics'), and scopes it to 'a set of imported keywords.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kwfinder_keyword_details or kwfinder_related_keywords, though 'imported' is slightly ambiguous and could mean keywords provided in the request vs. previously imported into a list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely restates the core function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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