direct_keyword_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level operation and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what 'presence' means, how device aggregation works, whether forecasts are historical or future, or any rate/auth constraints. 'Forecast' hints at a non-mutating operation but that is not explicit.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. It is appropriately compact, though adding routing or behavioral context would improve it without much bloat.

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?

The input schema covers the required parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not strictly needed. However, the description does not clarify the meaning of 'presence', the forecast horizon, or the device dimensions, leaving noticeable operational gaps for an agent that must invoke the tool correctly.

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 description maps the two required parameters to 'phrases and regions' and adds 'by device' as an output dimension, which gives them some semantic role. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it does not compensate further: no explanation of region ID format, phrase count limits, or how phrases and regions interact is provided.

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 ('Forecast') and resource ('search-volume presence') and identifies the key dimensions ('by device', 'for phrases and regions'). It is reasonably distinguishable from the recrawl/sitemap tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from forecasting or statistics siblings like yandex_wordstat_dynamics or direct_get_statistics.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set including wordstat, statistics, inventory, and forecast-adjacent tools, the description leaves the agent to infer when 'direct_keyword_forecast' is the right choice.

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