Trends.Interest Over Time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Relative" is the only behavioral disclosure (indexed/normalized values), and nothing is said about how many keywords can be compared, what geo/timeframe defaults do, rate limiting, or whether results are batched per keyword.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 values needn't be described, but for a 3-parameter analytics tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much unexplained: parameter formats, keyword limits, and the meaning of the relative index.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters, but it only obliquely implies keywords ("comparison set") and timeframe ("over time"). The geo parameter and the timeframe grammar (e.g. "today 12-m") are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 phrase "Relative search interest over time" names the resource and its normalized nature, and "comparison set" hints that multiple keywords are contrasted. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it doesn't explicitly separate itself from siblings like trends.interest_by_region or trends.related_queries beyond the implicit 'over time' vs 'by region' distinction.

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 "(demand / seasonality)" gestures at use cases, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the sibling trends tools. An agent must infer that region breakdowns belong to trends.interest_by_region and query volumes to trends.related_queries.

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