research_keywords

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the execution mechanism (Wordstat), the scope (RF), and the output shape (frequency and related queries), which makes the tool's behavior predictable. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but this is a research operation and there is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The positioning clause 'Основной инструмент подбора семантики' adds useful context without wasted words.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential completion criteria: it expands seeds via Wordstat and returns frequency and related queries. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the schema coverage and the tool's simplicity make the description sufficiently complete.

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 already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that seeds are 1–5 phrases and the region is RF, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Расширить' (expand), names the resource (1–5 seed phrases via Wordstat), and states the output (frequency and related queries for RF). It also positions itself as the main semantic-research tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling expand_query_pool.

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 gives clear context: use this as the primary tool for keyword selection and seed expansion via Wordstat. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions for alternatives, but the stated primary-tool role provides enough guidance for an agent.

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