find_spikes

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful algorithmic context by defining a spike as a run of points at least `threshold` times the term's usual level around that date, based on the surrounding year's median.

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 front-loaded with the returned spike attributes, then defines the core spike concept and use cases. It is efficient and avoids repetition, though the first sentence is somewhat indirect rather than leading with a direct action verb.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so those need not be described. However, with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete because it only clarifies `threshold` and leaves the remaining parameters undocumented.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only `threshold`; the other six parameters, including required `keyword`, plus `geo`, `limit`, `category`, `property`, and `timeframe`, are not given meaning in either the schema or the description.

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 identifies a specific analytical resource: detecting spikes in a term's search interest and returning start, peak, duration, and magnitude. It is more concrete than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as interest_over_time or trend_details.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: dating events, launches, outages, news cycles, and distinguishing one-off bursts from real growth. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of the highest usage-guidance bar.

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