Mot-clé et analyse sémantique

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the HTTP endpoint format and the list of returned data items, which gives context about what the response will contain. It does not disclose any side effects or constraints beyond what annotations imply, but the additional detail on the data included is helpful. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately lists the data contents, separated by em-dashes. It is efficient, with no redundant wording or filler. The structure is clear and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the expected data items, giving the agent insight into the response. However, it does not describe the response format, error conditions, pagination, or any additional context an agent might need for handling the result. For a simple read-only getter with two parameters, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 describes siteId as 'ID site encodé (hashid)', but id has no description, leaving 50% of parameters undocumented. The description includes the URI template with {siteId} and {id}, implying id is the keyword ID from the tool name, but it does not explicitly define either parameter. The description partially compensates for the missing id description but does not fully clarify semantics.

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 identifies the resource as a keyword and its semantic analysis, and enumerates the components (entities, salient terms, related searches, questions, SERP articles, strategy, editorial guide). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listKeywords and runKeywordSemanticAnalysis. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name for that. Still, the meaning is clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listKeywords or getSemanticMap. It implies that it fetches the analysis for a specific keyword ID (via the endpoint path), but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is inferred from the tool name and endpoint rather than explicitly stated.

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