seo_keywords_research

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists capability names. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns specific data shapes. The lack of any behavioral context leaves the agent guessing about side effects and output format.

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 one concise fragment that lists the tool's capabilities in a scannable way. No redundant words. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity, but it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Despite having six parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about return values, how to interpret the three types, or what the output structure looks like. It does not compensate for the missing output schema and leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by aligning 'keyword performance stats', 'related query expansion', and 'search volume estimates' with the 'type' enum values, but it does not explain parameter syntax, dependencies, or country/language format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists concrete outputs ('Keyword performance stats, related query expansion, and search volume estimates') that map directly to the tool's function and distinguish it from sibling analytics/site tools. It lacks a verb but communicates the resource (keywords) and the types of analysis. Could be clearer by explicitly stating 'perform keyword research' but is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analytics_query or compare_engines. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools. The existence of the 'type' enum (stats/related/traffic) implies different use cases but is not explained in the description.

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