Trends.Related Queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval operation but does not state safety characteristics, auth requirements, rate limits, or how the 'top' versus 'rising' results behave.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key output (top + rising related queries) and parenthetically clarifies intent. There is no wasteful text.

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?

Although an output schema exists, removing the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations. It omits the meaning of 'geo', does not clarify the keyword input, and gives no usage context.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'keyword' parameter's role or the 'geo' parameter at all, including its empty-string default. It only mentions 'keyword' incidentally in the phrase 'for a keyword'.

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 clearly states the resource: top and rising related search queries for a keyword, with the parenthetical 'keyword expansion' adding intent. It is distinguishable from sibling trends tools like interest_over_time and trending_now, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'keyword expansion' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trends.interest_over_time or trends.trending_now. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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