trends_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds value by disclosing the output structure (top scores 0-100 and rising growth percentage), which is not apparent from annotations alone. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful behavioral context about the return format.

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?

Two sentences, both meaningful and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core functionality and output format, the second provides a concrete use case. There is zero waste and no repetition of schema information.

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 (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), so the description need not detail return structure. Annotations cover safety. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects (output types) and the use case, making it adequate for a tool of this simplicity. Minor gaps like rate limits or error handling are not critical given the tool's low complexity and the presence of structured fields.

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 50% (geo and timeframe have descriptions, but keyword and limit do not). The description clarifies that the tool operates on a single keyword, which adds semantic meaning to the 'keyword' parameter beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any syntax details, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill. The added value is modest but non-trivial.

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 retrieves Google Trends related queries for a single keyword, explicitly listing the two output types ('top' and 'rising') and their meanings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like trends_compare (which handles multiple keywords) and suggest (which generates keyword ideas), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case ('Good for finding new keyword ideas') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies usage for keyword ideation but provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like expand_alphabet or trends_by_region.

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