get_trending_terms

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds 'trending now' (time-sensitivity) and 'optionally with related news metadata' (behavior depending on full_data), but does not add rich behavioral context like data freshness, ordering, or potential variability. This matches the baseline 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 tight sentences: the first delivers the core action, the second delivers routing guidance. No filler words; every part earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose and usage, the schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'optionally with related news metadata' loosely maps to full_data but adds no detail beyond what the schema already provides for geo (formats and examples) and full_data (related news stories). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('terms that are trending now for a geography'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from get_trends by noting the latter is for historical interest over time. This precisely differentiates from the sibling tools.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use this for current trend discovery; use get_trends when the user wants historical interest over time for known keywords.' It names the alternative and the condition that selects between them, leaving no ambiguity.

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