phrase_suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a 'phrase opportunity' contains, whether results are cached/live, or any rate or cost considerations for an open-world query.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight scoping.

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 needn't be explained, but for a 9-parameter reporting-style tool the description is thin: it does not convey what a phrase opportunity is, what dimensions apply, or how it differs from keyword suggestions in practice.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The description does not clarify how its filters/groupBy/timeRange semantics apply specifically to phrase opportunity data, so it neither adds nor detracts beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('phrase opportunities') scoped to an App Store app, which is clearly distinct from generic reporting verbs. However, it never differentiates itself from near-sibling suggestion tools like keyword_suggestions or app_opportunities, which an agent would need to distinguish.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus keyword_suggestions, category_suggestions, app_opportunities, or search_term_popularity, all of which are listed siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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