google_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data provider (DataForSEO); it says nothing about how results are normalized or scaled (relative interest index), latency, or any cap on keyword count, which matters for interpreting output.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information. The '[Provider: DataForSEO]' tag is minor but not wasteful, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what comes back, but it never mentions that results are relative interest values on a 0-100 scale or how keywords are aligned over time. Combined with the missing usage guidance, an agent can call it but may misread the response.

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 carries the burden — and it does: it explains that keywords is a list with a concrete example, and it enumerates all five allowed time_range values that the schema leaves as a bare string with a default. It stops short of stating the default value or any maximum number of keywords.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Compare keyword interest over time using Google Trends data' — so the agent knows this is a trends comparison tool rather than an ads or keyword-management tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as google_ads_transparency, but the purpose is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or limits on how many keywords can be compared. The agent must infer from the one-line purpose that this is the right tool for interest-over-time comparisons rather than keyword discovery.

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