ywm_get_search_queries

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. While the tool appears to be a read operation, the description should explicitly state this to compensate for missing annotations.

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 sentence, concise but too brief for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middle score.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is inadequate. It lacks context about response format, pagination, or parameter relationships, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without additional knowledge.

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%, and all parameters have descriptive comments. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage cases.

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 'Get search query analytics history' clearly states it retrieves historical analytics for search queries. It uses a specific resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like ywm_get_query_history or ywm_query_analytics, preventing a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve query or analytics data, the absence of usage context or exclusions is a notable gap.

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