google_trends

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

With readOnlyHint: true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention limitations of Google Trends data (e.g., relative vs. absolute values, sampling), nor what the output looks like. The description effectively stops at stating the action.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a brief Args section. Every line provides useful information: examples for keywords and enumerated options for time_range. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and read-only annotation, the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to explain the 'config' parameter, does not describe the return format (especially since there is no output schema), and omits any caveats about Google Trends data. These gaps make the tool less predictable for an agent.

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 schema has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'keywords' with an example and lists all valid values for 'time_range'. However, the 'config' parameter is completely undocumented, and no explanation is given for why it exists or how it might affect behavior. Coverage is partial.

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 a specific action ('Compare keyword interest over time') and resource ('Google Trends data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keyword_research or keyword_rankings, which focus on different data sources or metrics.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to compare keyword interest over time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The intended use is clear enough from context, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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