trends_by_region

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

The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the 0–100 score scale, the sorted ordering, and the conditional output level based on the geo parameter. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the key behavioral variation. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return structure is covered. The description covers the main functional behavior and the geo behavior, but could benefit from mentioning the role of the limit parameter or how resolution interacts with geo. Still, overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with annotations.

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?

The description adds semantic meaning for the geo parameter beyond the schema by stating that '' returns countries and a country code returns regions. However, the limit parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description, so the 50% schema coverage is only partially compensated.

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 tool returns geographic regions where a keyword is most searched, using Google Trends data with a 0–100 score and sorted order. It distinguishes itself from siblings like trends_compare or trends_related by focusing specifically on regional popularity, and it clarifies the geo-dependent output level.

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 explains the two modes – country-level when geo='' and region-level when a country code is provided – which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the choice to inference rather than stating exclusions.

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