Yandex search queries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description repeats 'Read-only' plus adds specific behavioral details: the ranked-list vs. time-series modes, how queryId affects the trend, and default ordering. 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then breaks down report modes with bullets, and ends with a useful tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 10 parameters and two modes, the description provides enough context about result types (ranked list, time series) and usage flow. An output schema is absent, but the description covers the main user decisions and even suggests external correlation, making it fairly complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with defaults, enum constraints, and usage notes. The description adds minor usage context (e.g., 'top' for seeing phrases, 'trend' aggregate) but does not materially extend what the schema already provides.

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 it provides search-query analytics for a host, listing specific metrics (impressions, clicks, average positions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on indexing, sitemaps, and diagnostics.

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 explicitly explains the two report modes and when to use each: 'top' to see which phrases people search, 'trend' for time series. It also adds a practical tip about cross-referencing with Yandex Metrica. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear.

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