get_related_queries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'top and rising' and 'literal search queries', clarifying the result semantics beyond a generic query-list tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the core function, the second provides routing guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of schema.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, a full output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the core function, usage context, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing essential for selection or invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor nuance with 'one seed keyword', but parameter semantics are essentially fully documented in the schema; no additional compensation is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('top and rising literal search queries related to one seed keyword'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming get_related_topics and get_suggestions. This removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for query expansion') and names specific alternatives with conditions ('use get_related_topics for topic entities or get_suggestions for autocomplete candidates'). This is ideal routing information.

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