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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells us the output includes rising and top queries, which is useful, but it does not specify return format, whether a keyword is required (though schema says 0 required), or any limitations. For a simple read-only query tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two short clauses, no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and it immediately tells the agent what the tool produces.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and output types. Minor gaps like output format or dependencies on keyword are not critical because they are implied by the nature of the tool and the schema.

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 has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema says: it mentions 'around a keyword' which repeats the keyword parameter description, and it doesn't clarify the country parameter further.

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 what the tool does: it returns related queries (what people also search for) around a keyword, and specifically mentions both rising and top queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trending_topics or search_news, which focus on different data.

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 clear context by indicating the tool is for keyword-based related query discovery. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the use case is directly implied: use this when you need 'people also search for' data for a specific keyword.

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