direct.hf.report_search_phrases

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally, but the description adds nothing beyond them: no statement about report latency, date-range defaults, pagination, or row limits. For a report-generation tool the description should at least characterize the output volume.

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 single sentence is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy: the 'Human-friendly:' prefix and '(optional)' add no information and occupy the front-loaded position that should carry the tool's purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition still leaves five parameters at 40% coverage unexplained and gives no notion of what the preset report contains. For a reporting tool in a crowded sibling set this is inadequate.

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 only 40%, and the description mentions no parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for undocumented fields such as date_from/date_to and campaign_id. The two documented parameters (account_id, direct_client_login) get no extra context from the prose.

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 phrase 'Direct search phrases report preset' names a resource but supplies no verb and no scope, effectively restating the tool name with a vague 'Human-friendly' wrapper. An agent cannot tell from this text what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like direct.hf.report_performance or direct.hf.report_keywords.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to an alternative report tool. The lone qualifier '(optional)' is left unexplained and does not clarify selection criteria.

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