Get Popular Queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (the TOP-3000 cap) but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about auth requirements or rate limits. Most behavioral context is left unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the cap and returned indicators come first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry its informational load.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and full schema description coverage, the core calling information is present. The remaining gap is routing guidance among the many query-related siblings, which the description does not address, leaving it only minimally 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail, including defaults and formats. The description only loosely maps its 'indicators (shows, clicks, positions)' phrase to the query_indicator options, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('popular search queries'), and a scope ('TOP-3000') with the indicators returned. This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like get_sitemaps or get_hosts, but it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as get_query_history or get_query_analytics.

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 and no alternative named. Given multiple query-related siblings (get_query_history, get_single_query_history, get_query_analytics), an agent gets no help choosing between them, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a user_id/host_id pair).

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