get_keyword_gap

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: apps outside the index return `measured: false`, are excluded from the count, and are not charged. The 200-credit-per-app cost is disclosed, which is valuable for an agent budgeting calls.

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?

Front-loads the core output description, then adds usage, edge-case, and cost notes; nearly every sentence carries information. The trailing 'Part of Hive Explorer' tag is the only low-value fragment.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, it covers the returned fields, the out-of-index edge case, and the cost model. Enough for correct invocation, though it could note ranking sources or platform-specific caveats.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the first app id should be the user's own, giving ordering significance to an otherwise flat comma-separated list.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and precisely what is produced: each app's rank per term, how many apps hold it, and which are missing. The scope (up to 5 apps in one storefront) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyword_competition and hive_keyword_spy.

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?

Gives clear context via 'Put your own app id first to see the terms your rivals hold and you are still to win,' which tells the agent how to use it productively. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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