direct_keyword_forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that output is a forecast broken down by device and region, but says nothing about latency, quota, or what 'search-volume presence' actually returns beyond the output schema.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, but for a forecasting tool with zero schema description coverage and 2 required params, the description is too thin: it omits what region_ids refer to, any phrase limits, and the significance of the device dimension in the output.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden but only echoes the parameter names conceptually ('phrases', 'regions'). It does not explain that region_ids are numeric identifiers (and where to obtain them), how many phrases are allowed, or any format constraints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (forecast) and resource (search-volume presence), plus the two dimensions of granularity (device, region) and the input units (phrases, regions). An agent can distinguish it from wordstat volume lookups, though it never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the regional/volume tools (yandex_wordstat_get_top, yandex_wordstat_regions) that an agent might confuse this with. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.

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