Popular searches around a seed

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the autocomplete querying method, merge order, meaning of position 1, what tracked marks, and that Google Play has no public source. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, and the description does not contradict them.

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 definition is front-loaded and largely waste-free, packing purpose, method, ordering, tracking, and limitations into a compact block. It is slightly dense and clause-heavy, but not bloated.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work by explaining what is returned, how suggestions are ordered, and what tracked means. It also covers the main limitation, making it complete enough for an agent 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 description adds useful parameter-level meaning by stating that Google Play is unsupported and by clarifying that tracked relates to phrases already in the project, which helps interpret the store and projectId parameters.

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 states the resource and scope: popular searches from a store's own autocomplete around a seed word in one market. It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as suggest_keywords or search_store, though it names add_keywords as the downstream action.

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 gives a clear use case (finding high-demand phrases to add with add_keywords) and an important limitation (Google Play is unsupported). It does not compare against alternative tools or state when not to use this tool beyond the Google Play exclusion.

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