Get Search Terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the data source (store performance CSV), that it is not available via the Play API, and that results are ranked by acquisitions. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it depends on a prior report generation, or how missing data is handled.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the opening sentence. The second sentence adds useful provenance information about the data source, though its phrasing is slightly awkward. Overall, each sentence earns its place without unnecessary padding.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the output schema plus full parameter schema cover the invocation basics. Still, the description could better situate the tool within the broader ASO/reporting workflow, such as noting whether the store performance CSV must be fetched first or how this compares to get_keyword_suggestions. It is adequate but leaves some usage context implicit.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, examples, and a default for 'top', so coverage is 100%. The description adds the ranking-by-acquisitions context, which lightly reinforces the meaning of 'top', but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states what the tool returns: user search terms with acquisitions per term, ranked by acquisitions. It identifies the resource ('search terms') and the metric ('acquisitions'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, relying instead on the data-source note to imply its niche.

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 offers some context by noting this ASO data exists only in the store performance CSV and not via any Play API, which hints at when the tool is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like get_keyword_suggestions, search_store, or get_store_performance_report, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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