get_competitor_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and reveals an important trait: the tool performs no new API calls and relies on accumulated SERP snapshots, signaling a read-only, cache-based operation. It does not detail error behavior, authentication, or pagination, but the core operational behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first states the tool's output clearly, the second discloses implementation behavior. No redundant words, and the information density is high for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains core value and data source, but without output schema or annotations it does not fully describe result shape, the meaning of region, or how 'top' is defined. An agent could call it with just the required domain, yet some context about optional parameters and output format remains missing.

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 description maps two parameters conceptually: 'competitor' refers to domain and 'нас' (us) implies our_domain for comparison, complementing the schema descriptions. However, the region parameter is left without any semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, and 67% schema coverage leaves a 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 identifies the tool's purpose: showing queries where a competitor ranks in the top and where our domain is absent. It also adds a differentiator by stating it is built from accumulated SERP snapshots and performs no new API requests, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or use an imperative verb.

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 statement that the tool is based on accumulated snapshots and does not make new API requests implies when it is appropriate (using cached data) and when not (needing fresh results). However, it provides no explicit comparisons to alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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