Get Google Trends data

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It instead adds genuinely useful behavioral context: values are relative 0-100 rather than search counts, no account or key is needed, and comparison is capped at 5 terms. It does not discuss rate limiting, retry behavior, or result-size characteristics, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Purpose and output contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, with cost/auth/comparison facts trailing in short sentences that each carry distinct information. It is dense and slightly list-heavy, but no sentence is filler; a small trim of the parenthetical enumeration would make it tighter without losing signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so by naming the summary fields and the flat-row categories. It also covers authentication (none), value scale, and comparison limits, which are the facts an agent most needs before calling. Missing are result volume/pagination expectations and any note on latency or failure modes for a 10-parameter scraping 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has documentation and the baseline is 3. The description's added meaning ("Compare up to 5 terms on one scale") largely restates the schema's compare parameter, and the 0-100 relative-value note is about output interpretation rather than parameter semantics. Little is contributed beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read Google Trends for search terms") and immediately enumerates what comes back: a per-term summary with average, latest, peak interest, recent change, top region, and top/rising queries, plus flat rows for interest over time, by region/metro/city, and related queries. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema, and no sibling tools exist to be confused with.

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?

Usage constraints are stated (up to 5 terms on one scale when comparing, no Google account or key required), which tells the agent the practical bounds of a call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing, nor any guidance on choosing among the many timeframes, output types, or geo modes beyond what the schema already documents. Adequate but clearly implied rather than directed.

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