Keyword metrics

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that results are keyword ideas with various metrics, but does not disclose any operational aspects such as result ordering, default limit handling, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The schema mentions server-side filtering, but that is in the schema, not the description.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence effectively captures the tool's function and output fields, the second adds helpful provenance. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the name/title.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description should provide enough context to choose this tool correctly. It does describe the core output, but misses usage guidance, parameter behavior, and how it relates to similar keyword tools. This makes it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (keyword, country, min_volume). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond implying 'keyword' is the seed term. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra credit is earned.

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 tool returns keyword ideas matching a seed term, and enumerates the specific metrics included (volume, difficulty, CPC, etc.). It also distinguishes itself by referencing 'Ahrefs Keywords Explorer matching-terms', which differentiates it from sibling tools like keyword-suggestions or 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be preferable. While the name and description hint at the matching-terms use case, the agent receives no direction relative to 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.