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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: sections are fetched independently, so partial results are normal and failures carry an 'error' field. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand that missing sections are expected, not a tool malfunction.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main capability, the second adds usage context, and the final note explains error semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the returned data sections and error behavior. However, it does not describe the exact structure or format of each section's data (e.g., time series format, region names). For a complex tool with multiple sections, a bit more detail on the response shape would be ideal, but the current description is adequate for selection and initial invocation.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (keyword, region), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to—the schema is self-sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('full picture of one term'), listing the exact sections: interest over time, where most searched, and related queries. It clearly distinguishes itself from the more granular siblings (get_interest_over_time, etc.) by framing itself as a comprehensive single-call research tool rather than a narrow query.

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?

The description states it is 'Suited to open-ended research on a topic rather than one narrow question,' providing clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for narrow questions, but the sibling list and the 'rather than' phrasing imply when to use this versus the individual getters. The partial-result note also sets expectations for use.

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