long_tail_questions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states what the tool does, not side effects, resource intensity, rate limits, or whether it mutates data. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand operational implications.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, highly concise and containing no fluff. It front-loads the core action and purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It omits crucial details like return format, pagination, filtering behavior, and what constitutes a 'long-tail query'. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 57%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'minWords' and 'minImpressions' are self-explanatory but the description could explain how thresholds affect results. The description does not compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('surface') and identifies the resource ('question and long-tail queries'), clearly stating the tool's function. It further explains the potential value (become FAQ sections, support docs, content expansions), which helps differentiate from generic query tools like 'top_queries' or 'search_analytics'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_analytics' or 'top_queries'. There are no exclusion criteria or context for when long-tail queries are appropriate, leaving the agent to guess.

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