Related queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It goes beyond the schema by clarifying that output includes top and rising queries, how rankings are determined, and the meaning of a 'Breakout' value. It does not address side effects, but the tool appears read-only and the core behavior is transparent.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide ranking semantics. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does state that it returns top and rising searches and explains the ranking and 'Breakout' meaning, but it does not describe the output structure (e.g., list vs. object, fields). This partial coverage is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides a full description for the only parameter, including the option of a topic id and an example. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool finds top and rising searches related to a term, using the specific verb 'find' and naming the resource 'related searches'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on related terms and top/rising rankings.

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?

Provides explicit use cases such as keyword discovery, SEO, and content research, and explains the difference between 'top' (ranked by volume) and 'rising' (ranked by growth). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use-case list is sufficient guidance for when to select this tool.

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