compare_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (comparison, relative share, leader, trend direction) but doesn't mention limitations like data availability, normalization, or how 'leader' is determined. It's adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by a clear use case. No 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain more about the optional parameters and any constraints (e.g., keyword count limits, required format). It's adequate for a simple comparison tool but leaves some gaps.

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 explains the 'keywords' parameter implicitly (2-5 keywords) but doesn't explain 'geo', 'gprop', 'category', or 'timeframe'. The description adds some meaning for the main parameter but leaves the optional parameters undocumented.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('keywords head-to-head'), and clearly states what it produces: relative share, leader, and trend direction for each keyword. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comparison rather than single-keyword trends or related queries.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use to pick the strongest angle among alternatives.' This gives clear context for selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the comparison-focused wording make the intended use clear.

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