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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive hints, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds useful context about relative vs absolute values, but provides no additional behavioral details like rate limits or return format.

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-sentence description that front-loads the core function, includes key details (data source, scale, and limit), and contains no redundant words. Excellent structure.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description hints at the return type (time series, 0-100) and supports multiple keywords. It is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though an example or more explicit return structure would improve completeness.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds a constraint not in the schema: the 1-5 keyword limit, which enriches understanding of the 'keywords' parameter.

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 clearly states the function: retrieving relative popularity time series for keywords on Google Trends, with a 0-100 scale and support for 1-5 keyword comparison. This is specific enough to distinguish from some siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes the function without mentioning any conditions or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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