mine_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does disclose meaningful operational traits: up to roughly 16 throttled requests per call and results cached for 24 hours. It also discloses that results are de-duplicated and carry a title angle. It does not cover failure modes, such as what happens with an invalid or unsupported geo, or permission or auth requirements.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns, then citing usage, the operational cost, and the limit. The long parenthetical listing expansions and locales is cramped, and the dangling 'see prefix_language' reference wastes a clause, but there is little true filler.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and throttling and caching are covered. However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters, an unexplained seed parameter and geo format, and a reference to a nonexistent parameter, the description leaves real gaps relative to its complexity.

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 0%, so here the description must compensate for the gap. It does explain limit as a range from 1 to 100 and explains that prefix localisation follows geo's language, but it points to 'prefix_language' as if that were a parameter, and no such parameter exists in the schema, which is confusing. The seed parameter is only described obliquely, as 'a seed'; and the accepted format for geo, such as a country code, is never specified.

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 verb and resource: mining long-tail questions that people type about a seed from Google Autocomplete, with 'how to', 'why', 'what is' and 'vs' expansions, plus de-duplication and title-angle tagging. That is far more concrete than a bare restatement of the name. It falls short of a 5 because it never names a sibling tool (for example related_queries or suggest_keywords) to separate it from 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?

'Feeds FAQ sections and answer-engine (AEO) content' implies the intended use case, so the context is there but not stated as guidance. Nothing tells the agent when NOT to use this tool, nor which sibling to prefer for a different question-mining need. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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