get_popular_search_queries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar for disclosure. The description adds context about the returned data points (query text, shows, clicks, average position) but does not disclose defaults, pagination behavior, or any limitations. This is acceptable but not rich beyond what annotations and schema already hint.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output fields. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant wording, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation. The description gives a high-level overview of the return content but omits practical details such as default date ranges, pagination, or output format behavior. However, the parameter schema is descriptive, and for a analytics read tool, this level of description is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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 all nine parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond echoing the indicator fields already enumerated in query_indicator. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 states a specific purpose: 'Per-query analytics: query text, shows, clicks, average position.' This clearly indicates it retrieves per-query performance metrics and frames it as 'the data behind which queries bring traffic.' It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_query_analytics and get_search_queries by emphasizing per-query granularity, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The description implies usage for understanding traffic-driving queries ('the data behind which queries bring traffic') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_query_analytics or get_search_queries. It lacks exclusions or alternative references, making the usage context inferred rather than stated.

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