Organic keywords

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does list the returned fields (volume, difficulty, CPC, best position, traffic), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, whether the result is a list or single object, or any prerequisites. This partial disclosure warrants a middle score.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief, impactful value statement. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of conciseness.

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 3 parameters and no output schema. The description lists the key return metrics but omits details about list structure, pagination, or country-specific behavior. It is adequate for simple understanding but leaves questions for an agent needing to parse results or handle large datasets.

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% (target and country are described, limit is not). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters; it merely restates that the target is a domain, which the schema already says. With only moderate coverage and no compensatory detail in the description, the semantics are under-specified.

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 tool returns 'Keywords a domain ranks for' with specific metrics (volume, difficulty, CPC, best position, traffic). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like keyword-suggestions or related-keywords, which imply idea generation rather than actual ranking data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'The clonable demand behind a competitor' implies a competitor-analysis use case, giving the agent a hint about when to use it. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when/not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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