searchatlas_keywords

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 'Keyword research' implies a read-only analytical operation, the description doesn't specify whether this tool makes API calls to external services, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase listing the tool's capabilities. Every word earns its place by specifying different aspects of keyword research. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.

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 of keyword research (which typically involves multiple metrics and analyses), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the results will be in, what specific metrics are returned, whether there are limitations on query volume, or how the clustering functionality works. For a research tool with rich potential outputs, more context is needed.

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 documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'message', 'project_id', or 'playbook_id' relate to keyword research functionality. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Keyword research' with specific components: 'search volume, difficulty, SERP analysis, and clustering'. This provides a specific verb ('research') and resource ('keywords') with detailed scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_content' or 'searchatlas_ppc' which might also involve keyword-related functionality.

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 multiple sibling tools available (e.g., searchatlas_content, searchatlas_ppc, searchatlas_site_explorer), there's no indication of when keyword research is appropriate versus other SEO or content analysis tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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