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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reports organic/sponsored presence, covers top 5/10/20 positions, and supports keyword filtering or listing top organic keywords. No additional risk disclosure is needed given the safe read-only 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 concise sentences that front-load the core metric and immediately state use patterns. Every clause adds value without repetition or filler.

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 analytical tool with an output schema, the description conveys the metric, scope, position tiers, and filtering/sorting behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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 already covers 80% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (limit, keyword, dateRange, platforms) and self-explanatory enum values for sortBy. The description only reinforces keyword filtering and highest-organic sorting, adding no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as reporting keyword share-of-search on quick-commerce, specifying organic and sponsored presence in top 5/10/20 results per keyword and channel. This distinguishes it from sibling qradar tools like get_qradar_overview or get_qradar_distribution.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: filter to one keyword or list the highest-organic keywords. It clearly communicates the tool's context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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