get_related_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' related keywords, with no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, output scope, or how the site_url parameter affects behavior.

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 or repetition. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool is simple with two required parameters, the description does not explain the role of site_url, the meaning of 'related,' or how this tool differs from the many keyword-related siblings. The information provided is not sufficient for confident selection and correct invocation.

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. It partially clarifies the 'query' parameter as the basis for relatedness, but it says nothing about the required 'site_url' parameter or expected formats, leaving a meaningful semantic 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get keywords related to a specific query.' It distinguishes the general intent from many siblings by focusing on related-keyword discovery, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from keyword-focused siblings like get_keyword_data or get_keyword_stats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. With numerous sibling tools involving keywords, queries, and stats, an agent is left to infer the appropriate use case without explicit routing.

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