google_trends

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the 12-month window, the relative 0-100 normalization, and the critical 'SANDBOX (development): returns dummy data, no payment' caveat, which tells the agent the results are not real and that no charge occurs. It does not explain what happens in non-sandbox mode or whether the call is worth caching, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, metric scale and timeframe, followed by the sandbox caveat. Slightly dense with stacked parentheticals, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the return shape (interest over time, relative 0-100, 12-month window) and the sandbox data caveat, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around production-mode billing and response granularity (weekly vs daily points).

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 all three parameters (including the location_code lookup hint and language fallback behavior) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the 'up to 5 keywords compared' constraint, adding little beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and metric ('Google Trends interest over time, relative 0-100, past 12 months, up to 5 keywords compared'), which clearly separates it from siblings like keyword_metrics or keyword_ideas. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the scope statement alone is enough to identify the tool's job.

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?

Usage is implied by phrases like 'compared against each other', suggesting comparative trend analysis, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., 'for absolute search volume use keyword_metrics'). The agent must infer the choice from the sibling list.

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