sonar_app_extract_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes the action as extracting keywords (a read operation) but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, output structure, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 long, efficient, and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return format. It only mentions 'ranked by relevance', which is vague. For a simple extraction tool, this is adequate but incomplete without specifying the structure of the output.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions; it does not clarify or expand on any parameter semantics.

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 extracts target keywords from an app's title and description, ranked by relevance. It specifies the action ('Extract') and resource ('keywords from an app'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sonar_competitor_keywords or sonar_app_keywords, which could overlap.

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 includes the use case ('understanding what an app is optimizing for'), which implies when to use it, but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools among the many keyword-related siblings.

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