google_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses payment cost (0.03 USDC on Base via x402) and the return format, but omits idempotency/caching behavior, auth requirements, and error handling — the confirmNewPurchase re-purchase semantics live only in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: resource, scope, return shape, and cost in one pass.

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, so the description rightly explains the return values (weekly timeline plus per-term average). Scope, cardinality, and cost are covered; only edge-case behavior (failures, re-run/caching) is absent, which is minor for a simple read-style lookup.

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 keywords, location_code, and confirmNewPurchase are already documented. The description restates the 5-keyword cap and the per-term average but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (Google Trends interest), scope (last 12 months), and cardinality (up to 5 keywords), plus the exact return shape (weekly timeline plus per-term average). No sibling is a trends tool, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the keyword/SEO tools in the list.

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 never says when to reach for this versus keyword_metrics, keyword_ideas, or ai_search_volume. It describes the output and cost but gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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