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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description needn't carry the full safety burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that the call counts toward the research quota, though it does not quantify limits or describe auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the quota cost appended. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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?

Without an output schema, the description helpfully says the results include popularity and difficulty and mentions quota impact. It is still incomplete for invocation because highPopularity and store behavior are undocumented, and the parameter schema itself has no descriptions.

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 0% for four parameters. The description only hints at the app and platform inputs and leaves store and highPopularity unexplained, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource, 'Keyword ideas', tied to an App Store app and selected platform, with popularity and difficulty metrics. It distinguishes itself from a pure popularity lookup, though it does not name a sibling tool.

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 use when an agent needs keyword ideas for an app and notes that it counts toward the research quota. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives such as get_keyword_popularity or get_most_searched_keywords.

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