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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It thoroughly explains the return structure (top-level keys, top/rising sections, query/value), parameter defaults, requirements like datetime-with-timezone and region-country dependency, and even the cost. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool this is strong transparency.

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?

Four concise, information-dense sentences cover purpose, return format, parameter rules, cross-tool references, and cost. No filler, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 params, output schema present), the description provides comprehensive input guidance, defaults, output structure summary, and related tools. Missing explicit sibling differentiation is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter with defaults and examples. The description adds minimal extra semantic value (e.g., 'region requires a valid country') but largely mirrors the schema, so the 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 opens with 'Fetch Google Trends related queries for one to five keywords,' which uses a specific verb and resource, defines the scope, and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling google-trends tools like interest_over_time or interest_by_region. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 sets clear usage context (one to five keywords, required start format, defaults) and cross-references google-trends.categories and google-trends.regions for discovering valid parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the choice somewhat implied.

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