google_trends_trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds value by clarifying that searchVolume is a rounded bucket, not a precise count. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like update frequency, response structure, or any limitations of the trending data. Partial transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds a necessary clarification about the output field. There is no wordiness 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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema the description should outline the response shape. It only mentions searchVolume, leaving the overall response structure (e.g., array of objects with title and searchVolume) implicit. This is minimally sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks full completeness.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (geo as country code with examples, limit as count with min/max). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 purpose: it returns what is trending on Google in a single country. The phrase 'right now' conveys real-time trending, and 'in one country' hints at a single-geo scope, distinguishing it from comparison tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_trends_compare or google_trends_interest. The 'in one country' wording implies a single-country use case, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. This is insufficient for an agent to make a confident choice.

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