Google Trends Interest

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: HTTP 400/401 rejections from the widgetdata endpoint, the auto engine's Camoufox in-page fetch that carries cookies/fingerprint, the 'limited' status outcome, and Google-side rate limiting. The mixed Indonesian/Malay in the NOTE reduces clarity slightly.

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?

Purpose and the key parameter hints are front-loaded, but the NOTE is long and partially redundant, and the language switches mid-document (English/Indonesian), which costs readability. The engine parameter is described twice in slightly different terms.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description does cover the failure/fallback and rate-limit behavior an agent needs. However, three parameters (hl, tz, geo) are undocumented anywhere, which leaves the definition incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only covers 3 of 6 params: keywords (comma-separated, max 5, with example), timeframe (concrete value examples), and engine (auto/http/browser semantics). hl, tz, and geo receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving real gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource – Google Trends interest-over-time – and scopes it with the mechanism (internal explore API, no key). The phrase 'interest-over-time' cleanly separates it from the sibling google_trends_daily (daily trending searches), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the tool is for interest-over-time queries, and a fallback is suggested 'when the result is blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool.' The alternative is never named, and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus google_trends_daily or other sibling tools.

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