estimate_volumes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: the 4-keyword batching strategy, the Google Trends ratio plus Bing-base computation, and the explicit caveat that results are 'rough estimates, not exact counts.' 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?

Three dense sentences deliver the method, the base-value logic, the output schema highlights, and the key field guidance. Every sentence adds information, and the most important caveat ('rough estimates') is prominently included.

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 a non-trivial estimation algorithm, the description covers the essential computation, output fields, and uncertainty. The output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. It lacks minor clarifications such as regional matching or timeout behavior, but nothing critical 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 coverage is only 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the meaning and relationship of anchor, anchor_volume, engine_multiplier, and Bing impressions, which is the core algorithm. It does not elaborate on geo, timeframe, bing_language, or threshold params, but those are reasonably clear from the schema and the described tier output.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate monthly search volume for many keywords.' It clearly distinguishes this estimation tool from the sibling expansion, suggestion, and trends-comparison tools by describing the anchor-based methodology and output (volume, tier, confidence, method).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need approximate monthly volumes rather than exact counts. It also provides concrete selection guidance ('Pick an anchor of similar popularity whose volume you know'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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