get_keyword

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states return type (Optional[Keyword]) and raises BingWebmasterError, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or what 'keyword impression data' entails. The mutation vs. read nature is implied but not explicit.

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 relatively concise but uses a Python docstring format (Args, Returns, Raises) which may not be optimal for an AI agent. The 'self' parameter appears in the schema but is missing from the description's parameter list, causing inconsistency. Some sentences are unnecessary (e.g., 'Optional[Keyword]' could be in schema).

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 tool has 6 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the structure of the return type (Keyword), possible values for country/language, or date format. Among many sibling tools, this description does not help an agent differentiate or use it 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description lists parameter names in Args but provides no explanation beyond the names themselves (e.g., 'query: The keyword query' is just restating the name). The 'self' parameter is omitted from the Args list entirely, leaving it completely undocumented. No formats or constraints are given.

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 'Get keyword impressions for a selected period' which indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_keyword_stats' by focusing on impressions. However, the inclusion of a mysterious 'self' parameter in the schema (not explained in description) slightly muddles the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_keyword_stats' or 'get_related_keywords'. The description does not mention prerequisites, data source, or context. The 'self' parameter is not explained, which could confuse an agent.

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