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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which conveys little. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: scores are peak-normalized and relative per dimension, and several categories of inference (population shares, counts, income, unreturned buckets) are explicitly off-limits. That is exactly the kind of output-semantics disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, how scores are scaled, and what not to do with them. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its job by explaining the scoring semantics and the interpretation limits, which is the critical missing piece for a normalized-scores tool. It stops short of describing the response shape (per-age/per-gender series, granularity of buckets), which would fully close the loop.

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 50%: keywords and both dates are documented in the schema, but 'market' has no description and is constrained to the single value 'US'. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., the 5-keyword cap or the 366-day window) beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: relative keyword interest broken out by age and gender, sourced from Trends. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like nexscope_seo_keyword_interest_history and nexscope_seo_keyword_interest_regions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (demographic breakdown of keyword interest), and the negative guidance ('Do not infer population shares, counts, income...') constrains interpretation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over keyword_interest_history or keyword_interest_regions, and no prerequisite guidance.

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