get_people_also_ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that search intent and AdWords data are optional, but does not describe pagination, date filtering, read-only nature, response format, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, but it omits important contextual details, making it too terse for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the required inputs, pagination semantics, or what information is returned. The optional data mentions are helpful but not enough for a production agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 0% for 9 parameters. The description adds meaning for two boolean flags (include_search_intents and include_adword_stats) but remains silent on required parameters (site_global_key, search_engine) and other optional ones (dates, page_limit, keyword_names). It only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies the resource: PAA (People Also Ask) questions from SERPs. While the verb is implicit ('get' is implied by the tool name), the resource is specific and distinct from sibling tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource name 'PAA questions' is unique enough to indicate the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional inclusions (search intent, AdWords data) but does not explain scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among many sibling tools, no comparison is offered.

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