google_trends_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the data is 'normalized' and sourced from an 'internal TrendsUi batch RPC replay,' which offers some transparency about data origin and processing. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or the shape of returned data.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it includes technical jargon ('TrendsUi batch RPC replay') that may reduce clarity. Every word earns its place, but the jargon could be simplified.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned rows contain, how parameters interact, or what a typical response looks like. The agent lacks context to form proper expectations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The term 'normalized' might hint at data transformation, but it does not explain how individual parameters like 'geo', 'hl', or 'window' affect the output.

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 it returns 'normalized Google Trends Trending Now rows from the internal TrendsUi batch RPC replay.' The verb 'returns' and the resource 'Google Trends Trending Now data' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like google_trends_trending_detail, which may have a similar purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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