get_related_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any limitations, default behaviors, data source, or notable output characteristics. The description is too thin to be considered 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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, especially the 'single' qualifier, which helps scope the operation.

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 simple retrieval tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation but not the surrounding context. It lacks guidance on selection among sibling tools, behavioral expectations, or what 'related queries' means in practice. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the emphasis on 'single search term,' which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('related queries for a single search term'), clearly identifying what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_related_topics or get_suggestions, so it misses a bit of differentiation, but the core 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?

The phrase 'for a single search term' implies this tool is for one keyword at a time, which provides some usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_related_topics, get_suggestions, or other siblings, and no 'when not to use' direction.

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