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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the search is live, results are not saved as a snapshot, and the output is a Markdown table with specific fields. This makes the behavior understandable without contradicting the annotations.

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 two well-structured sentences. The core behavior, scope, major constraint, and return format are all front-loaded with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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?

For a read-only, idempotent search tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which stores it queries, the live behavior, and the response shape. There are no significant gaps that would prevent correct invocation or result interpretation.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add new semantics for store, term, num, lang, or country beyond what the schema already states, but it does clarify the output format (rank, id, title, score, developer), which gives some context for what parameters influence.

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 specific verb ('Run'), a precise resource ('live ranked search'), the four stores supported, and the key constraint ('without storing a search snapshot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyword_rank or list_apps, so an agent can tell what it does without inspecting the schema.

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 gives useful context: it is a live, ranked, non-persisting search across four named stores. The phrase 'without storing a search snapshot' implicitly tells agents not to use this for historical keyword-rank lookups, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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