get_search_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states 'Search query report'. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, its side effects, or any limitations. The tool name implies a 'get' operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a label.

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 extremely brief — a single phrase — but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, so the brevity is not appropriate for the complexity. It fails to earn its place because it offers almost no value.

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?

Despite the tool being simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not state what the report contains, how the 'days' parameter affects results, or any typical use cases. An agent would have to guess at nearly every aspect of calling this tool, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'days' (integer, default 30), but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'days' or explain that it likely controls the reporting period. Since the schema lacks descriptions and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are entirely unexplained.

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 'Search query report' is a noun phrase that vaguely indicates the tool deals with search terms but lacks a clear action. It doesn't explicitly state what it does (e.g., retrieve, generate, list), making it generic. It is not a tautology of the name, but it is too vague to distinguish from related tools like get_keyword_performance or run_report.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description says nothing about use cases, filters, or alternatives. It does not mislead, but it offers no context to help an agent decide when to invoke it among the many reporting tools.

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