get-popular-queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ranking semantic but nothing about pagination behavior, result limits (the schema mentions a default of 100), or date-range scoping effects. Adequate but not rich beyond structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the two exclusions. No filler, no repetition of schema detail, and the routing information is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing well and annotations cover safety. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify result volume/pagination expectations or how date_from/date_to bound the aggregation, though the schema names them.

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 100%, so every parameter including order_by, device_type, and date ranges is already documented in the schema; the description's 'shows or clicks' merely restates the order_by enum. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Get) and resource (popular search queries) scoped to a site, and immediately clarifies the two ranking dimensions (shows or clicks). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get-query-history and get-insearch-samples as the wrong tools for adjacent jobs.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case ('top queries for a site by shows or clicks') plus two negative routing rules with the correct alternative tool named in each. This is the ideal form of when/when-not guidance.

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