daily_history

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real operational disclosure: the data is stitched from overlapping 8-month windows joined on shared days, scaled to one 0-100 series, with a ~4-year cap of eight windows at two requests each. That request/limit context is valuable and not in the schema, though return-shape details are left to the output schema.

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?

Content is mostly front-loaded and every paragraph earns its place — the windowing mechanics, the cap, the weekday add-on, then parameter notes. Slightly sprawling with the hard line break mid-sentence, but no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious mechanics (windowing, scale, cap) and the two most important parameter semantics. The undocumented geo/category/property parameters are the remaining gap, though they are largely self-explanatory.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially compensates: start/end format (YYYY-MM-DD, end defaults to today) and points (the series is averaged down to that many rows, summary always included) are explained, but geo, category, property, and keyword are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: day-by-day interest data over a long range, explicitly contrasted with the ~9-month daily limit that Google Trends imposes. That framing makes it clearly separable from interest_over_time and other siblings without naming 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?

Gives a clear use condition — you need daily granularity over ranges beyond ~9 months, up to about 4 years — and notes it also returns a weekday pattern. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use for shorter ranges, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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