Search demand as a number

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds critical behavior: each call spends real money from the cloud folder, exact costs per method, tree is free, quota is 100 calls per sliding hour, quota is reserved locally before the network call, and exhaustion returns a named wait. This is genuinely valuable transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: source and methods, cost and quota warning, and credential setup. No filler; the most important operational warnings are front-loaded and bolded.

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 an expensive, quota-limited, 8-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough: it explains method-specific return concepts, costs, quota behavior, credential prerequisites, and a safe free first call. Combined with the rich schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The prose repeats method outcomes that the schema already describes and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already documents region codes as strings, date formats, device limits, and num_phrases bounds.

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 identifies the Wordstat API (Yandex Search API v2, Yandex Cloud) and explicitly distinguishes it from the Direct API. It lists four concrete methods with different purposes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs from the direct_* siblings.

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?

It says when to use the tool (search demand), which method to start with (tree, free and safe), warns about real-money costs, and explains the separate credential requirement. It also explicitly states this is not the Direct API, giving a clear exclusion versus sibling tools.

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