google_trends_compare

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels by disclosing that values are normalized across keywords and that the tool refuses 6+ terms rather than silently dropping one. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it does not cover error handling or auth requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and a key behavioral caveat in the second. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output semantics (0-100 normalized values), and an input constraint. It lacks guidance on how this tool relates to google_trends_interest or other siblings, but enough is provided for an agent to know when to invoke it for comparison tasks.

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 already covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain basic meaning. However, it adds semantic value by explaining why the keyword limit is 2-5 (to ensure normalized comparison) and what happens if the limit is exceeded, which goes beyond the schema's '2 to 5 search terms' text.

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 the tool's action ('Compare up to 5 keywords in ONE Google Trends request') and highlights the distinguishing normalization feature, making it easy to differentiate from related tools like google_trends_interest. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when comparing/ranking multiple keywords in a single normalized request. It also implicitly states a limitation (6+ refused) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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