semrush_related_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or output format). It does not contradict 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 extremely concise at 7 words and quickly conveys the core purpose. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it is not overly long.

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 that this is a keyword research tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not define 'related keywords', describe the output structure, or mention any limitations (e.g., language or region). The annotations cover safety but not semantics.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'keyword', 'database', or 'limit', nor does it clarify default values or constraints beyond what is in the schema.

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 for a specific keyword'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like semrush_broad_match_keywords or semrush_phrase_questions by specifying 'related keywords'.

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 when to prefer related keywords over broad match or other keyword tools, nor does it indicate prerequisites or limitations.

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