wp_seo_keyword_research

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing behavioral: it does not indicate whether external APIs are called, whether results are cached or persisted, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens without a configured site.

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 action front-loaded and no filler. It is well sized, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

A keyword-research tool with only a 'site' parameter and no output schema leaves the central question unanswered: how the topic or competition criteria are supplied. Without annotations or an output schema to fall back on, the description is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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% for the single 'site' parameter, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively implies a 'topic' input that does not exist in the schema, which can mislead the agent about how to supply research criteria. The description adds no usable semantics for the site parameter.

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 names a recognizable activity (keyword research and suggestions) and mentions the basis (topic and competition analysis), but it does not differentiate from nearby SEO siblings such as wp_seo_analyze_content or wp_seo_track_serp, and it references a 'topic' input that the schema does not expose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other SEO tools in the suite, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer placement from the name alone.

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