webmaster_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only the metric set; it omits authentication needs, data freshness, default time range, ordering, and whether results are paginated or capped. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a considerable gap.

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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the resource and the key returned metrics.

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 description conveys what data is returned, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it leaves open the timeframe covered, result ordering, and whether the default limit of 25 is the only cap, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the behavior or response scope.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at high coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (search queries where the site appears in Yandex) and enumerates the returned metrics (impressions, clicks, average position). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like webmaster_summary or wordstat_phrases, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for site-specific query data rather than keyword research (wordstat_phrases) or a general summary (webmaster_summary).

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