keyword_overview

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuine, non-redundant behavior: it fans out to four requests and degrades gracefully, reporting a refused part while still returning the rest. That partial-failure semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the composite scope before the usage cue and the fan-out caveat. Every sentence adds information; only minor polish is missing.

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 composite scope, first-look guidance, and partial-failure behavior are covered, and the presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation. However, with five undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, an agent cannot confidently set geo, timeframe, or category from the description alone.

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 five parameters (geo, category, property, timeframe, keyword), and the description mentions none of them. It gives no syntax, format, or default guidance (e.g. '12m' timeframe strings, geo codes, category IDs), so it fails to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 ('whole Google Trends page for one term in a single call') and enumerates the bundled outputs (curve, direction, top places, related searches). This implicitly distinguishes it from the granular siblings (interest_over_time, related_queries, interest_by_region) by signalling it is the aggregate first-pass 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?

'Use it as the first look at a keyword' gives explicit positioning guidance for when to reach for this tool. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g. when only one data section is needed), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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