expand_questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reports progress, defaults sources to ['google'], and explains the output is scored phrases similar to 'People also ask'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds useful context about intent and scoring, and the third sentence covers defaults and progress reporting. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly clearer by separating the default from the behavioral notes.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotence, and the output schema exists, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it does, how it scores, default sources, and progress reporting. It doesn't explain the exact output structure, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no mention of how 'gl'/'hl' affect the question prefixes, but this is not critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'sources' default and the general role of the keyword, but it does not explain 'gl', 'hl', or the exact format of 'sources' beyond the default. The description adds some meaning (e.g., language prefixes, scoring) but leaves several parameters to be inferred from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('expand') and resource ('a seed with question prefixes'), and clarifies the language dimension. It also names a sibling ('expand_alphabet') for comparison, which helps distinguish it from similar expansion tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with expand_multilingual, another close sibling, so differentiation is partial.

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: it surfaces informational intent similar to 'People also ask', and notes that phrases are scored like expand_alphabet. It also states the default sources. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like expand_multilingual, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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