google_trends_trending_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that related data is returned 'when Google returns them,' indicating variability. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, required permissions, or what happens if the term is not trending.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (multiple return widgets), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details about the request object structure and the format of the returned data, which are necessary for correct usage.

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% but only provides a minimal description 'Trending detail request' for the nested request object. The tool description adds no further detail about the request structure or fields, thus adding no value beyond the schema.

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 detail widgets for a single trending term, listing specific data types (interest over time, regional interest, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like google_trends_trending and google_trends_explore by focusing on a single trending term's detail.

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 implies usage for getting details on a trending term but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., google_trends_trending or google_trends_explore). No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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