Related keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that results are derived from top-ranking pages and are semantically related rather than literal. However, it does not disclose any aspects like whether results are sorted, whether they include search volume, or any rate limits. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core definition and delivery method. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core function and source of the data. It could benefit from mentioning what the output looks like (e.g., a list of related keywords), but it adequately conveys the tool's purpose and basic behavior. The absence of annotations is offset by the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (keyword and country), leaving 'limit' undocumented. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, the description contributes little extra meaning, but the schema is mostly self-explanatory, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function as surfacing semantically related keywords based on top-ranking pages for a seed keyword. It includes a specific methodology ('top-ranking pages for the seed also rank for') and distinguishes from literal match tools like keyword-suggestions by adding 'beyond literal matches.' This makes the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools.

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 context (when you need semantically related, adjacent on-topic terms), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyword-suggestions. There are no exclusions or explicit 'use when...' guidance, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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