Wordstat dynamics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of what auto_dates does, how the date range interacts with period granularity, or what shape the returned dynamics take, despite a mutation-free but non-trivial query.

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 a single terse sentence with no wasted words and no burying of key information. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, since almost no useful content is delivered.

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, zero schema descriptions, and defaulting/auto_dates behavior that directly changes results, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side gaps remain severe.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: only the period granularity is echoed, which is already fully specified by the schema enum. auto_dates, devices, region_ids, and the from/to date pair are left entirely unexplained.

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 the resource ('Wordstat demand dynamics') and indicates period granularity, which loosely distinguishes it from siblings like wordstat_top_requests and wordstat_regions. But it contains no verb (fetch/retrieve) and 'demand dynamics' is jargon that doesn't explicitly say it returns a time series of search volume.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a phrase or region context. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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