Citable — keyword research from a seed

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a $0.05 USDC per-call cost, states that failures are not charged, and specifies ordering by volume. This is valuable operational context that the annotations do not provide, and it sets correct expectations for an agent.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct value: cost, output behavior, differentiation from siblings, and failure policy. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies exactly what the response contains: up to 100 keywords with search volume, CPC, competition, difficulty, intent, ordered by volume. Combined with full parameter schema coverage, sibling differentiation, and cost transparency, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 parameters like seed, lang, limit, and country are already documented. The description adds meaningful interpretation: results are full-text matched so they stay on topic, and the seed is implied to be a topic rather than a domain. This goes beyond a baseline schema-only 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?

The description opens with a precise, actionable statement: one seed returns up to 100 containing keywords with volume, CPC, competition, difficulty, and intent, ordered by volume. It clearly separates this tool from citable_keyword_suggest and citable_keyword_metrics, so an agent can identify its distinct role without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus sibling tools: use citable_keyword_suggest for exact phrasings people type, and citable_keyword_metrics when a shortlist already exists. It also clarifies the matching behavior (full-text, on-topic), which helps the agent decide if this tool fits the task.

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