Trends.Interest By Region

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not disclose that values are typically relative indices, whether data is sampled, rate limits, or any auth requirements. The tool is a read operation, but that must be inferred.

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 short sentence, so there is no bloat, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient front-loading. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation the agent lacks guidance on resolution values and on what the geographic breakdown contains. The definition is thin for a 2-parameter analytics tool.

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 0% for both parameters. The description never explains what 'keyword' means (single term? list?) or what 'resolution' accepts — the COUNTRY default implies a geographic granularity choice, but valid values (REGION, DMA, etc.) are undocumented everywhere.

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 names the specific resource (geographic breakdown of keyword interest), which a sibling like trends.interest_over_time does not cover. It is clearly differentiated in subject matter from the other trends tools, though the phrasing is terse.

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 parenthetical '(geo-targeting)' hints at a use case but does not state when to choose this tool over trends.interest_over_time, trends.related_queries, or trends.trending_now. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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