google_trends_trending_now

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: notes the geo parameter's default behavior making it effectively optional, and describes the return format (JSON with trending_searches array and specific fields). This adds value beyond the schema, though it lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary details like credits and return format without unnecessary fluff. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 read tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and output format adequately. Missing elements like error handling or use case examples are not critical given the tool's simplicity. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the return structure description.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds nuance about geo's practical optionality due to a default, and hints at hours' predefined values. This enriches the schema information, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 'Retrieves currently trending searches on Google', specifying a concrete action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'google_trends' (historical trends) and 'google_trends_autocomplete' by focusing on real-time trending data.

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 usage for current trends with location/time/language filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'google_trends' or 'google_trends_autocomplete'. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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