interest_by_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (list of records with geoName and keyword column), explains the 0-100 relative scale, and notes that values are region-relative. This gives an agent a concrete expectation of the output's meaning. It does not mention side effects, but as a 'search' operation it is implicitly non-mutating. This level of disclosure is solid for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 a well-organized docstring with a purpose line, Args section, and Returns section. It avoids fluff, and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (e.g., repeating the 0-100 scale), but every sentence adds useful information, so it earns its place.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is quite complete. It covers parameter formats, return structure, and the meaning of the interest scale. One minor gap is that for a worldwide geo, it is not explicitly clarified that records will be per country rather than per state/region, but this is a minor ambiguity given the phrase 'state/region within the specified geo.'

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It defines 'keyword' as a single search term, 'timeframe' with an example format, and 'geo' with ISO code and 'worldwide' option, plus a default. All three parameters are explained beyond the schema, which only lists names and types. This is exemplary.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action ('Search interest for a keyword') and the resource/scope ('broken down by state/region within the given geo'). This distinguishes it from siblings like interest_over_time (time series) and related_queries/topics (associations). The purpose is unambiguous 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 implies a use case (regional breakdown of interest) and provides parameter constraints, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools. It says 'within the given geo' which hints at context, but there is no direct comparison to siblings. Thus, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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