get_related_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about returning 'top and rising' topic entities, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as limits, pagination, or data source nuances. This matches the bar for a read-only tool with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling guidance is compact and directly actionable. Every word 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It clarifies the tool's niche relative to a key sibling and states the core use case without omitting anything an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds slight semantic value by calling the keyword a 'seed', implying it is the basis for expansion, but does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('Google Trends topic entities'), and a clear scope ('related to one seed keyword'). It also differentiates from get_related_queries, making the tool immediately distinguishable from its closest sibling.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('for entity or topic expansion') and when to use an alternative ('use get_related_queries for literal search queries'). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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