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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only adds a price/cost tag and an example. It does not clarify auth or rate behavior, does not note that geo is not an accepted parameter despite appearing in the example, and does not explain the time value 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with a clear purpose sentence and a concise example. It loses a point because the example includes geo=, which is not present in the input schema and may mislead agents.

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 are less critical, but correct invocation still requires time format guidance and clarification of parameter optionality. The description also fails to differentiate from sibling trend tools, leaving a material completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at q via 'keyword' and shows 'time=12-m' in the example. It never defines valid time formats or notes that geo is absent from the schema, leaving parameter construction ambiguous.

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 states the specific resource and result type: 'Google Trends related queries: top and rising search terms for a keyword.' This is enough to distinguish it from api_trends_region and api_trends by topic, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of api_trends or api_trends_region, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The example query implies a keyword input, but the description does not help an agent select between related sibling tools.

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