Top Requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the time range (last 30 days) and that similar/associated queries are included. However, it does not specify if the operation is readonly, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on error. The behavior is adequately described but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every word is necessary; no fluff or repetition. Efficiently communicates the tool's core function and a key feature (Wordstat operators).

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality, time range, and operator support. The output schema is not explained (not required per rules). It does not list default values for numPhrases or explicitly mention that devices and regions are optional, but these are in the schema. The description is nearly complete for an average agent to use 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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds value by stating that the phrase parameter supports Wordstat search operators, which is additional context beyond the schema's 'Keyword to search for'. For the other parameters (devices, regions, numPhrases), no extra info is given, but the overall semantic gain justifies a score above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns popular search queries containing a keyword for the last 30 days, plus similar/associated queries. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'popular search queries' are specific, and the mention of Wordstat operators adds precision. Sibling tools are about regions and dynamics, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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?

Usage is implied (keyword research for the last 30 days), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is low, but the description could be more helpful by stating, e.g., 'Use this to explore keyword popularity trends.'

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