Get Keyword Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which tell the agent this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (returns historical volume) but does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is very brief and could include a bit more context without compromising conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full parameter descriptions, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple lookup tool. It does not cover usage context but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.

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 'Historical volume for a keyword slug.' specifies the verb (get/retrieve) and the resource (historical volume for a specific keyword slug). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_keywords or get_related_keywords which have different purposes.

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 when historical volume for a specific keyword slug is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The sibling list is given but not leveraged in the description.

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