Keyword suggestions

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 mentions the nature of the output (real autocomplete suggestions with metrics) but omits details about rate limits, data freshness, or any limitations. It adds some context beyond the schema but not deep behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core value proposition (autocomplete-style suggestions with volume/CPC/intents) and then an illustrative explanation. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description partially covers return values by mentioning volume, CPC, and intents. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the limit parameter and how this tool differs from related-keywords. For a relatively simple tool, it is adequate but leaves some contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, covering keyword and country, leaving limit without a description. The description reinforces 'seed keyword' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The limit parameter is still inferable from its constraints, but the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 provides autocomplete-style search suggestions with volume, CPC, and intents, going beyond the tool name. It distinguishes from likely siblings like related-keywords by emphasizing 'real autocomplete-style' and 'what people actually start typing into Google'.

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 implies usage for discovering real user queries around a seed keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like related-keywords or keyword-volume-by-country. No direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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