Yandex Wordstat

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds a useful operational warning that it may consume SEO Intellect account limits. It does not disclose the asynchronous task/polling behavior implied by wait_for_result and task_id.

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?

Two short sentences with the key action first and a relevant operational warning second. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 schemas reveal two invocation modes (keywords+region and task_id continuation) and async polling options, but the description only covers the keyword-fetching mode. With no output schema, an agent is left without guidance on what the result looks like or how the task lifecycle works.

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 high, so the baseline applies. The description names keywords as the input and frequencies as the output, but adds no semantics for region, device, variant, or the ws_* flags beyond what the schema already 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 names a clear action ('Collect ... frequencies') and a resource ('Wordstat frequencies for keywords'), which distinguishes it from unrelated SEO tools at a high level. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like suggest or lsi, but the verb+resource pairing is specific enough.

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 tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. The only operational hint is the account-limits warning, which is a constraint, not a usage rule.

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