dataforseo_labs_google_keyword_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what data is returned, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential costs/rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is purely functional without operational context that would help an agent use it appropriately.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists the key data points returned. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't waste words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the tool's function from the data points returned for better readability.

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?

Given the complexity (keyword analysis tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, data structure, or what happens when keywords aren't found (though the schema mentions this). For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the response format and operational considerations.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add value regarding parameters.

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 purpose: 'provides Google keyword data for specified keywords' and lists specific data points (cost-per-click, competition, search volume, intent, monthly searches). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on keyword overview data rather than historical data, keyword ideas, or other specialized functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'keywords_data_google_ads_search_volume' or 'dataforseo_labs_google_historical_keyword_data'.

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. With many sibling tools available (including 'keywords_data_google_ads_search_volume', 'dataforseo_labs_google_historical_keyword_data', 'dataforseo_labs_google_keyword_ideas'), there's no indication of when this 'overview' tool is appropriate versus those other keyword data tools. The description simply states what data is returned without contextual usage advice.

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