google_trends_interest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses a key behavioral trait: values are '0-100 relative WITHIN this single request' and 'not comparable to another call's numbers'. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention return format or rate limits, but for a simple read-only tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical caveat and a clear sibling reference. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description covers the main usage caveat (non-comparability) and the alternative. It could explicitly state the response is a time series, but 'interest over time' implies it. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptive parameter explanations for keyword, geo, and timeframe. The description adds little beyond saying 'ONE keyword', which mostly reinforces the schema's 'A single search term'. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'interest over time for ONE keyword', a specific verb+resource with explicit scope. It also distinguishes itself from google_trends_compare by noting the alternative for ranking terms, which differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'use google_trends_compare when you need to rank terms against each other', providing a direct alternative and the condition for choosing it. This also implicitly states the current tool is for single-keyword relative interest, making usage context clear.

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