Google Trends Interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the widgetdata endpoint often rejects non-browser requests (HTTP 400/401), that engine=auto falls back to Camoufox with cookies/fingerprint, and that persistent failure yields status 'limited'. It omits auth/rate-limit specifics, but the failure-mode and fallback disclosure is genuinely valuable context.

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 is front-loaded, but the text is bilingual (English + Indonesian) and repeats engine explanation across the param list and the NOTE block, padding the length. Structure is serviceable but not tight.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. However, three parameters (hl, tz, geo) are undocumented and there is no usage routing versus sibling trends tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with non-trivial fallback behavior.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains keywords (comma-separated, max 5), timeframe (with concrete examples), and engine (auto/http/browser semantics), but leaves hl, tz, and geo completely undocumented in both schema and description. Coverage of half the parameters is partial compensation.

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+resource: 'Google Trends interest-over-time via internal explore API (no key).' The 'interest-over-time' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling google_trends_daily, and the '(no key)' note clarifies access requirements. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 is implied through parameter examples (keywords max 5, timeframe values like 'now 7-d', engine options), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus google_trends_daily or other search siblings. No exclusions or preconditions are stated for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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