hive_keyword_spy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: every call costs credits and an app with no keywords costs 1, which materially affects invocation decisions.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose before the billing caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool with full parameter documentation, the description is nearly sufficient, and the credit-cost note is a valuable addition. It falls short only on distinguishing itself from sibling tools covering similar keyword data.

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%, with appId, country and platform fully documented (including the enum and defaults), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only loosely echoes 'one storefront' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (ranks for) and resource (keywords any app ranks for in one storefront, plus rank per keyword). It is clear what the tool returns, but it offers no differentiation from the near-identical sibling hive_keyword_ranks, leaving the agent to guess which to use.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several closely related siblings (hive_keyword_ranks, hive_keyword_metrics, get_keywords). Usage is only implied by 'any app' and 'one storefront'.

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