kwfinder_related_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' the list, with no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, pagination, API rate limits, output format, or how 'related' keywords are determined. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording, making it very concise. However, the brevity leaves out important context, so it is efficient but minimal.

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?

Given the tool's 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the large set of similar kwfinder_* siblings, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to explain what 'related keywords' means, how to construct a request, or how this tool differs from others, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including 'keyword' as 'Seed keyword or exact keyword.' The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters interact or what values are expected, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since no compensation is required.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('related keywords list from KWFinder'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kwfinder_suggested_keywords or kwfinder_competitor_keywords, which could cause confusion about which to select.

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. It does not mention any contextual triggers, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection among the many kwfinder_* siblings.

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