hive_keyword_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial value beyond them: per-metric evidence, source time, freshness and last-attempt status, plus the crucial rule that a missing value stays null and is never zero. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before interpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then the routing exclusion, then the platform caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining return values (1-100 popularity, 0-100 difficulty, null-on-missing) and the side-effect profile. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the schema already carries the format examples ('habit tracker', 'us'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the keyword must be exact and scoped to one storefront but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond that.

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 (Read) and resource (stored popularity and difficulty of one exact keyword in one storefront), and pins the scope to specific metrics with defined ranges. An agent can tell it apart from the many other keyword tools at a glance.

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 says it never triggers a measurement and routes to hive_measure_keyword_metrics for that, plus adds an 'iOS only' platform constraint. It does not, however, disambiguate against the similarly named sibling get_keyword_metrics, leaving one likely confusion unresolved.

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