get_keyword_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not describe what 'historical statistics' include, whether results are aggregated, any rate limits, or how the output is structured. The output schema helps with return values, but behavioral context remains thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place but is perhaps too terse given the parameter complexity; still, conciseness itself is strong.

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, an output schema, and numerous closely named siblings, one sentence is inadequate. The description does not explain what historical statistics are returned, how site_url qualifies the keyword, or how this tool relates to get_query_stats and get_keyword_data. The output schema covers return shape, but the overall context is under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only maps 'specific keyword' to the query parameter and offers no explanation of site_url, country, or language, or how they interact. This leaves the required site_url parameter entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('historical statistics for a specific keyword'), which is clear and distinct enough to suggest a time-series-oriented stats tool. It does not explicitly differentiate among the many sibling stats tools, but 'historical' and 'specific keyword' narrow the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_keyword_data, get_query_traffic_stats, or get_query_stats. There are no exclusions, use cases, or alternative routing hints, leaving an agent to infer when this specific historical-keyword-statistics tool is appropriate.

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