language_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the metric definition and no behavioral context such as date-range defaults, row limits, or freshness/caveats beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the measure and the grouping dimension immediately. It is tight, though it could have spent one more clause on usage rather than examples.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation, no date-window behavior, and no routing guidance among many similar analytics siblings, the description is materially incomplete.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Fields like days, max_rows, source, search_type, start_date and end_date are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.

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 specific metric (share of clicks and impressions) and a specific dimension (script/language of the query), with concrete examples (Persian vs Arabic vs Latin). It is clear what the tool computes, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like query_search_analytics, top_terms, or brand_split.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this over other segmentation tools such as brand_split or query_variants.

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