direct_wordstat

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it mentions writing a full list to disk, returning only a summary, that client_login is unnecessary, that Shows is monthly search demand rather than a campaign forecast, that invalid geo codes fail silently, and that the method is unavailable in sandbox. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 long but every sentence adds value, especially because the schema provides no parameter descriptions. It is well organized: behavior first, then use cases, then parameter details, then caveats. Nothing is redundant or filler.

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 a 4-parameter schema and no schema descriptions, this description covers purpose, use cases, all parameters, caveats, and environment limitations. An output schema exists, so the lighter treatment of return structure is acceptable. Nothing important 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: phrases explains the 50-phrase limit and Yandex operators, geo_ids gives examples and default behavior, min_shows and top are both explained with meaning and bounds. Every parameter receives practical context that the schema lacks.

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 names the exact resource (Yandex Wordstat) and the specific output: monthly search frequency, co-occurring queries, and similar queries, plus a summary per phrase. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like direct_report or direct_regions, even without explicit sibling comparisons.

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 second paragraph gives explicit use cases: semantic collection, diagnosing low impressions, and separating demand decline from campaign decline. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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