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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: it performs one SERP call plus up to four follow-up expansions, costs 2 credits (free when no questions are found), returns only the first `limit` questions, and notes that answers are in structured content only. This materially informs the agent about side effects and output handling.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then cost, then return shape. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: the data source, request expansion behavior, cost, row limiting, and structured-only answers. It could go slightly further by clarifying how the source domain field appears or how to handle the structured content, but the existing detail is strong.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only marginal parameter-related context by referencing `limit` in the return behavior, which is helpful but does not meaningfully extend what the schema already states.

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 resource ('Questions people ask around a keyword'), a concrete source (Google People Also Ask), and what the return value includes (questions with source domain). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like keyword_suggestions or related_keywords without needing to open 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 context is clear: use this when you need People Also Ask questions for a keyword, backed by SERP call and follow-up expansion details. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary against siblings like serp_analysis or keyword_suggestions.

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