match_trends

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description adds real value by disclosing the matching rule: whole-word, case-insensitive containment in trend title or query, with the concrete 'ai' vs 'rain' example. It also clarifies geo defaulting behavior. Return shape is 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compact per-parameter notes. No filler sentences, though the geo phrasing ('blank = the default location, else US') is slightly tangled and costs a little clarity.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the matching semantics are well covered. However, the omission of hours and limit semantics, which control the time window and result count, leaves a meaningful gap for a 4-parameter 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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It documents 'terms' thoroughly with format and matching semantics and explains 'geo' defaulting, but leaves 'hours' and 'limit' entirely unexplained despite both being part of the 48h/25-item behavior.

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 first sentence names the resource (current trends) and the operation (matching them against your subjects), with the use case (newsjacking/timely content) making the intent concrete. It is distinguishable from siblings like trending_now or trend_details, though it never directly names an alternative.

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 is implied through the newsjacking/timely-content framing, which tells the agent the scenario this tool serves. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools such as trending_feed or keyword_overview.

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