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

The description discloses that term frequency is used and specifies the return format (keywords with word/score, total_words). However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral aspects like language support, stop word handling, or performance considerations.

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 (two sentences plus return structure) but omits critical parameter information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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's simplicity and absence of output schema or parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining input constraints and return details. While it defines the return structure, it neglects parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has two parameters (text, top_n) with no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain either parameter, so the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.

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 extracts top SEO keywords from marketing copy using term frequency, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like word_frequency, which performs a similar but more general analysis.

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 alternatives (e.g., word_frequency or extract_meta_tags). The description implies use for SEO keyword extraction but lacks exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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