get_suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that this is an autocomplete operation, but does not disclose behavioral details like result limits, rate limits, or language handling beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is delivered compactly in the second sentence.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the one missing selection context: when to prefer this tool over get_related_queries. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is omitted.

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 both keyword and language are already documented. The description only adds the phrase 'seed keyword,' which largely restates the keyword parameter and does not materially enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 action and resource: return Google Trends autocomplete suggestions for a seed keyword. It also distinguishes the tool from get_related_queries by naming the sibling explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 says to use this tool for lightweight autocomplete or entity candidates, and gives the alternative tool for top or rising demand signals. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive.

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