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

The description discloses that results are derived from live search/suggest results (not panel data) and that every result is labeled estimated:true. This adds significant value beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, which do not specify data source or estimation status.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output fields, and data source. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the result fields and the estimation flag, providing a clear picture of the return value. It does not cover pagination or limitations, but those may not be critical for this tool's use case.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'seed term' as the input, adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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 provides directional keyword ideas for a seed term, with specific metrics (difficulty score/label, traffic score, result count, top competitors). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it derives from live search/suggest results, not panel data, which sets it apart from other ASO tools.

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 implies usage when you have a seed term and need ASO keyword ideas. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, which is a minor gap given the sibling tools available.

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