xmlstock_wordstat_dynamics

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 reveals the paid nature ('ПЛАТНО за запрос'), the automatic month-stretching rule ('для month период автоматически растягивается на целые месяцы'), and returns the format '[{ date, count, share }]'. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the input schema, though it doesn't cover all potential quirks like authentication or error handling.

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 information-dense, covering purpose, cost, parameter syntax, an edge-case behavior, and return format in a few sentences. It is not overly verbose, though the structure is a bit run-on with multiple clauses. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid foundation: it explains the return shape, cost implication, and a special case for month period. It does not elaborate on region/account parameters, but those are already described in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a parameterized query 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 coverage is 67%, leaving query and period without descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the period enum values ('day/week/month'), the date format for from/to, and the month-stretching behavior. It also clarifies the return structure, which helps infer query semantics. This adds value beyond what the schema specifies.

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 'Динамика частотности фразы по времени' (frequency dynamics over time), specifying the resource (Yandex Wordstat via XMLStock) and the distinguishing scope (time dynamics) from sibling tools like xmlstock_wordstat. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately obvious.

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 conveys that this is for historical frequency dynamics and warns 'ПЛАТНО за запрос' (paid per request), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like xmlstock_wordstat, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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