wordstat_phrases

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses asynchronous behavior (~3 min prep), the retry/idempotency pattern, auth mechanism (Live v4 API with same token), and implied rate/size limits (up to 10 phrases). Missing: what the output contains, whether calls are cached, error semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then operational behaviour (async + retry). No filler; every clause is actionable.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, async timing, retry behaviour, and auth. It does not explain the shape of results or constraints on combining phrases, but the essential operational knowledge is present.

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 all three parameters are documented there (top, geo_id with default [225], phrases limit 10). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States specific resource (Yandex Wordstat frequency data) and two clear functions (monthly search volume + co-occurring queries), distinguishing it from Metrika/Webmaster siblings. Sibling differentiation is implicit by data source rather than explicit routing.

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 one important usage rule: if the call returns 'still preparing', retry with the same phrases. But no guidance on when to use this vs other tools, no prerequisites, no mention of limits beyond those in schema, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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