get_keyword_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 25-query limit and the competition calculation basis, which is non-obvious. However, it does not mention output structure, error behavior, or whether the tool is read-only, so transparency is partial.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key constraints and methodology. 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?

For a simple metrics tool, the description covers purpose, query limit, and methodology. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not state the return format or any limit/error behavior, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to consume the result correctly.

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 documents region and with_competition but not keywords. The description adds meaning to keywords by describing them as a list of queries limited to 25, and it explains what competition means for with_competition. Region remains only schema-documented, so the description does not fully compensate, but it adds real value.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: frequency and competitiveness for a list of queries, including a hard cap of 25. It also clarifies how competitiveness is calculated. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_competition or research_keywords.

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 intended use case is clear: call this when you need frequency and competitiveness for up to 25 queries. The methodology note about Yandex SERP composition and ignoring link weight gives context that helps with tool selection, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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