related_queries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that 'rising' includes % growth and is_breakout (>5000%), which is useful, but it does not cover other behaviors such as how 'top' queries are determined, pagination, error handling, or effect of parameters like geo or timeframe. The description provides some transparency but leaves major behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 (two sentences) and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded. There is minimal fluff, though the phrase 'best single source of fresh blog angles' is subjective and could be seen as marketing rather than factual. Overall, it's efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists to cover return values, but the description's lack of parameter explanation and limited behavioral context leaves significant gaps. It does not convey enough for an agent to understand how to shape queries or interpret results beyond the basic keyword. The description is not sufficient for a tool of this 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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters except referencing 'keyword' in the first sentence. It offers no guidance on what 'geo', 'gprop', 'limit', 'category', or 'timeframe' mean or how they affect results. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter 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 clearly states the tool returns 'Top and rising search queries related to a keyword,' which specifies the verb (returns), the resource (search queries), and the scope (related to a keyword). It differentiates from sibling 'related_topics' by explicitly saying 'search queries' rather than topics, and the mention of 'rising' with % growth is a distinct feature. The use case 'best single source of fresh blog angles' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives a usage context ('best single source of fresh blog angles') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies use for content ideation but leaves the agent to infer when to choose this over siblings like 'suggest_keywords' or 'related_topics'. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so it's minimally adequate but not fully guiding.

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