kwfinder_suggested_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, request side effects, output format, or pagination. This is minimal transparency for an API tool.

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 filler or redundancy. It states the primary purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it verges on under-specification, but for the 'conciseness' dimension, it earns a high score for minimal waste.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and a competitive sibling landscape, the one-line description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the request/response model, any required parameters (all are optional according to schema), or what 'suggested keywords' means. This leaves an agent unable to effectively use the 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (url, body, query), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The generic body/query descriptions are not specific to this endpoint, though.

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 states the core function (get suggested keywords for a URL) with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like kwfinder_competitor_keywords or kwfinder_url_metrics, which may also work with URLs. The purpose is somewhat vague because 'suggested keywords' is not defined in relation to the endpoint's specific behavior.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, or mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. An agent would have no basis for selecting this over the many other kwfinder tools.

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