Search suggestions

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

The description adds a useful behavioral note: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits.' This goes beyond the annotations, which only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it omits the dual request-mode behavior (new task vs. polling by task_id) and the asynchronous timeout semantics, which are significant behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The phrase 'Upstream API tool: suggest' adds little value and is somewhat redundant, but the overall length is appropriate and easy to parse.

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?

This is a relatively complex tool with two anyOf input modes, many parameters, and no output schema. The description does not mention the task_id polling flow, return semantics, or the meaning of several suggest_* parameters. The schema carries some weight, but the description is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds little parameter-level detail. The description does not explain opaque parameters like suggest_cyr, suggest_lat, or stoplist, but the schema is credited with carrying that burden.

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 and resource: 'Collect Yandex or Google search suggestions.' This is clear and matches the title. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wordstat or lsi, but the focus on search suggestions is reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as wordstat, lsi, or relevant_pages. The account-limit warning is a caution, not a usage condition, and there are no exclusions or workflow hints.

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