Wordstat top requests

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the 30-day data window; it does not disclose result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what 'associated' means in practice.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the overall under-specification.

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 a four-parameter retrieval tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter guidance and sibling routing, though the existing output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 mentions none of the four parameters (phrase, devices, region_ids, num_phrases). It therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema for any input.

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 identifies the resource as Wordstat queries and scopes them to the last 30 days, but it never states a verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like wordstat_dynamics or wordstat_regions. 'Popular and associated' is vague about whether it returns top queries by volume, related terms, or both.

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 given on when to use this tool versus wordstat_dynamics, wordstat_regions, or other siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.

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