keyword_suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the opportunities are for an App Store app and does not explain scope, pagination behavior, or what kinds of opportunities are returned.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording. However, it is so terse that it omits useful front-loaded context about scope and alternatives.

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?

The tool has nine parameters and an output schema, and annotations cover safety. Still, the description does not explain what a keyword opportunity is, how results differ from sibling suggestion tools, or how filtering and pagination should be used.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage but not enriching.

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 states a clear verb and resource: getting keyword opportunities for an App Store app. It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as phrase_suggestions, category_suggestions, keyword_report, or keywords_query.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling suggestion and keyword tools. It also omits prerequisites or context such as needing an Apple Ads profile and ad account, even though those are required parameters.

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