Keyword volume by country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are split by country, but does not specify output format, data source, or any limitations. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds valuable geographic context. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with only one parameter, but no output schema exists, so the return structure is unspecified. The description explains the basic functionality and purpose but does not describe the response format or any potential edge cases.

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?

With a single 'keyword' parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description names the keyword context by referencing 'a keyword,' but provides no format, examples, or additional parameter details. It offers minimal added meaning beyond 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 it provides search volume broken down by country, with the added insight of 'where the demand actually lives geographically.' This distinguishes it from siblings like keyword-volume-history (time-based) and keyword-metrics (general metrics).

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 geographic focus implies it's for country-level demand analysis, which differentiates it from sibling tools like keyword-suggestions or serp-overview. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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