get_ranked_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'get' and gives no details about how ranking works, what the result shape contains, or any limitations. The read-only nature is implied by 'get', but the description does not disclose behaviors beyond that.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and 'ranked' immediately signals the tool's core purpose.

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 that all four parameters are fully documented and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance for selecting among sibling trends tools, but the structured context covers the call parameters and result format.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'ranked', but it doesn't need to because geo, sort, limit, and source are already documented in the schema.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('ranked trending keywords on Google Search'), so an agent understands the basic operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_top_trends or get_trending_terms, but the 'ranked' qualifier provides some scope.

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 about when to use this tool over the many related siblings such as get_trends, get_trending_terms, get_top_trends, or get_growth. No contexts, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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