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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive) by disclosing what the tool does not do: no volume or difficulty numbers are invented, no AI-gateway budget or credits are spent, and it draws on this project's own tracked prompts for mention-rate signals. The output shape (autocomplete completions reframed as questions) is also disclosed. This is useful extra behavioral context, though it does not cover pagination or result limits.

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?

Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, which is good. However, the description spends roughly half its length on defensive disclaimers about what is not provided, which reads as verbose for what could be stated more compactly.

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 research tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly. The main missing pieces are any statement about the volume or form of results returned and how they relate to already-tracked prompts, which the description only gestures at.

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 three parameters with their meanings and the languageCode default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: turns a seed topic into candidate prompts for tracking, sourced from real Google/Bing autocomplete completions. Distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly by explicitly disclaiming search volume and framing the output as prompt candidates. It is clear enough to tell apart from research_keywords and explore_ai_prompt, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

Implies when to use it: to find prompt candidates worth tracking from a seed topic. But it never states when to prefer it over siblings like explore_ai_prompt or research_keywords, nor prerequisites such as needing an existing project. Usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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