keyword_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses an external dependency (Uses iTunes Search API), output elements (difficulty, competing apps, budget usage), and access level (Pro feature). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error/rate-limit behavior, which would be useful given the absence of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences, each adding value. It starts with the primary purpose, then describes key outputs, and ends with external API and access constraints. No fluff or redundancy.

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 keyword analysis tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main purpose, key behaviors, and access constraints. Minor gaps like the exact meaning of 'budget usage' or expected return format are not critical given no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100% with both parameters (app_id and extra_keywords) documented. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze'), resource ('your app's keywords'), and purpose ('against search competition'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on keyword analysis, mentioning difficulty, competing apps, and budget usage, which sets it apart from tools like competitor_snapshot or metadata_diff.

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 implies usage when keyword competition analysis is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Pro feature' hints at access constraints, but no exclusions or alternative tool comparisons are provided.

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