get_interest_by_region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns geographic breakdowns, requires known keywords, and does not provide time-series data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance to get_trends is placed at the end without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has seven parameters, but the schema covers each one with descriptions and defaults, and an output schema exists. Annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing contextual piece—when to choose this tool over its siblings—making the overall package complete for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, mainly reinforcing that keywords can be one or more and listing the resolution choices. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not add substantial extra meaning.

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 ('Return'), a clear resource ('geographic Google Trends interest'), and specifies the available resolutions ('country, region, city, or DMA'). It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing the geographic dimension and explicitly naming get_trends as the alternative for time-based interest.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to compare where demand is strongest') and provides a direct alternative with a condition ('use get_trends for interest over time instead'). This gives an agent clear, actionable selection guidance without needing to inspect other tools.

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