get_related_keywords

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

The description discloses return type (List[Keyword] with impression data) and that it raises BingWebmasterError on failure. This is adequate behavioral insight given no annotations are present. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Get' implies a safe operation.

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 concise, with separate sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Each sentence is necessary, though the Args list could be integrated more smoothly. No extraneous information is present.

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 description covers most input parameters and outputs, but misses the 'self' parameter and offers no usage differentiation from siblings. Given the output schema exists, return values are partially handled, but the missing parameter and lack of context for complex queries reduce completeness.

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?

The description provides parameter meanings for query, country, language, start_date, and end_date in the Args block, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the required 'self' parameter entirely, leaving a gap in coverage. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 the tool gets keyword impressions for related keywords in a selected period, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'related keywords'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_keyword (single keyword) and get_keyword_stats (statistics) by focusing on related keywords with impression data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_keyword or get_keyword_stats. The description only explains what the tool does, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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