Fetch real popularity

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

The annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds materially useful context: it identifies the external data source and the requirement for a connected source, which explains why the operation is open-world and non-idempotent. It does not disclose quota consumption, rate limits, or failure behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause contributes routing information, prerequisite information, or scope clarification.

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?

Given two parameters, complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and sibling differentiation well. It still leaves minor gaps around return format and external-source cost or rate-limit behavior, but an agent has enough to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, so projectId and markets are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds context that the popularity is for the project's keywords, but it does not add syntax or behavioral meaning for the markets parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Pull', and a specific resource, 'REAL search popularity for the project's keywords', and names the external sources. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from rank checks and ASOMaster's estimates, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 states the prerequisite clearly: a connected source, pointing to get_popularity_status, and it distinguishes this from rank checks and estimates. It does not explicitly mention connect_popularity as the fallback or compare directly with siblings like popular_searches or get_volume_calibration, but the usage context is clear.

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