Related keywords

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the data source is Bing impressions, and the call is not scoped to a site property, which tells the agent no site/credential binding is required. It omits return-size or rate-limit behavior beyond what the limit param already states.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core payload and result metric front-loaded before the parenthetical qualifier. Every clause contributes; only the parenthetical is slightly compressed in a way that leaves the sibling routing implicit.

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 usefully names the return payload (related keywords plus their Bing impressions). For a six-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete; a note on pagination behavior at higher limits is the only notable gap.

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%, including defaults, max, and the 'prefer filters or aggregation over large limits' guidance, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description's 'in a period' only loosely echoes the startDate/endDate parameters and the seed-keyword semantics of q. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the resource precisely (keywords related to a seed keyword) plus the returned metric (Bing impressions) and the time scoping (in a period). The parenthetical 'not tied to your site' distinguishes it from the site-bound siblings like get_query_stats and get_keyword_stats, though it does not name an alternative outright.

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?

'Keyword research; not tied to your site' implies the use case and the negative condition (not for analyzing your own site's data), which is the main routing signal here. However, it never names the sibling to use instead when the user does want site-bound keyword data, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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