wordstat.top_requests

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 says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, data freshness, or any other behavioral trait. This is a complete omission.

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 front-loaded and contains no wasted words, using a parenthetical to clarify the jargon 'topRequests'. It is efficiently structured, though extremely terse.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It omits usage guidance, behavioral context, and parameter detail, leaving an agent with little to go on beyond the basic purpose.

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 67%, leaving devices and regions undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the phrase scope, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. The schema itself documents phrase/phrases exclusivity and num_phrases limit, but the description contributes nothing.

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 states the resource (top queries) and the scoping input (by phrase), making the tool's output distinguishable from siblings like wordstat.dynamics (time-based) or wordstat.regions (geographic). It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wordstat.dynamics for trends, wordstat.regions for regional breakdowns, or wordstat.hf.suggest_keywords for keyword ideas). The description offers no context for selection.

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