v4keywords_get_suggestion

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

The description discloses two key behaviors: a limit of 20 phrases and that it spends API points. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It omits other typical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The disclosure of the limit and cost is helpful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The key information (purpose, limit, cost, and guidance to tool_help) is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the function, a major constraint, and a side effect. The output schema likely explains return values, so that gap is acceptable. The only missing element is clarifying whether the tool is read-only or has other effects, but overall it suffices.

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 has 100% required parameters but 0% description coverage. The description adds value by specifying that the 'keywords' parameter accepts 'up to 20 phrases,' which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain that the parameter is an array of strings or provide format examples. More detail would improve semantic clarity.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Get related keyword suggestions'), resource ('keywords'), and constraints ('up to 20 phrases'). Mentions it's via 'v4 Live GetKeywordsSuggestion', which distinguishes it from other keyword tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar keywordsresearch 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 provides a direct usage hint: 'Call tool_help("v4keywords_get_suggestion") for parameters.' It also notes that the tool 'spends API points,' suggesting it should be used judiciously. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like keywordsresearch_deduplicate or when not to use it.

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