related_queries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful output behavior — rising includes % growth and is_breakout >5000%, suspect=true spam items are excluded from `questions` — but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, failure modes, or geo/gprop behavior, leaving the procedural side dark.

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?

One dense paragraph front-loaded with the core purpose, then the semantic details of rising/questions/suspect. Every clause about flags and filtering earns its place; sizing is appropriate for the amount of return-shape nuance conveyed.

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-value explanation isn't required, yet the description covers it well. The gap is input-side: five of six parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and with no annotations the safety/permission profile is entirely absent.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description documents only the implicit `keyword`. It says nothing about geo, gprop, limit, category, or the timeframe default ('today 3-m'), so an agent must guess at values and formats for five undocumented inputs.

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 a specific resource — 'top and rising search queries related to a keyword' — and specifies the sub-shapes it returns (rising, is_breakout, questions, suspect). It positions itself as 'best single source of fresh blog angles,' which hints at a niche, but it never names siblings like related_topics or suggest_keywords to draw a hard boundary.

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 closing line 'Best single source of fresh blog angles' implies when the tool is the right pick, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives despite 13 siblings with overlapping surface (related_topics, suggest_keywords, mine_questions).

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