trending_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (list of strings), ordering (by trend rank), and typical size (~20). It does not mention read-only status or any error behavior, but for a trending fetch this is likely safe. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about side effects or limitations.

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 well-structured with an Args and Returns section, and the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It conveys necessary information without unnecessary fluff. The format is standard and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return shape. It mentions typical size and ordering, which is helpful. Missing details like error handling for invalid geo are minor and not critical for selecting/calling the tool.

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 has zero description coverage for the geo parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the format (full lowercase country name), providing examples, and explicitly stating it is not an ISO code, which is crucial for correct usage. This goes beyond simply naming the parameter and gives actionable guidance.

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 it provides 'Today's top trending searches for a country' with specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting the geo format differs from the other 4 tools. This makes it easy for an agent to select the right 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?

The description gives context about what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when you need trending terms vs. interest over time). The note about geo format is a parameter hint, not a usage recommendation. Usage is implied but not clearly scoped with exclusions.

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