yd_keywords_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the operations (merge, eliminate) but omits important details: whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, what it returns (e.g., deduplicated list), error conditions, or idempotency. The description is too vague to fully guide an agent on side effects.

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 two sentences, well front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.

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?

For a preprocessing tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., deduplicated list) and any constraints. It mentions preprocessing for campaigns but lacks this return info. Given the simple parameter set, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'keywords' and 'operations' are already described in the schema). The tool's purpose loosely maps to the operations but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: deduplicate and preprocess keywords. It uses specific verbs ('merge', 'eliminate') and specifies the resource ('keywords'). The mention of preprocessing before adding to campaigns distinguishes it from sibling tools like yd_keywords_add and yd_keywords_get.

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 implies usage context ('before adding to campaigns'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it list any exclusions or when not to use it. Sibling tools such as yd_keywords_has_volume exist but no contrast is drawn.

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