related_queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by defining the semantics of the result categories (Rising = largest growth vs prior period, Breakout = >5000% growth, Top = most searched with 100 being most common), which is genuinely useful interpretation context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose before the interpretive details, and the Breakout/Top explanations earn their space by clarifying return values. It is slightly verbose in the multi-line definition block but has no throwaway sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and absent detail on the deferred geo/timeframe/category formats, which is a modest but real shortfall for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 compensate for six parameters. It documents keyword ('one term or topic id') and defers timeframe, geo, category, and property to interest_over_time, but leaves limit completely unexplained and gives no format details (timeframe syntax, geo codes) that the empty schema lacks.

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 framing ('What else people who search a term also search: the top related queries and the rising ones'), which is concrete enough to distinguish the intent from sibling tools. It does not explicitly name related_topics as the contrasting sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 by the description of what the tool returns, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of when to prefer it over related_topics or keyword_ideas, and no prerequisites. The only routing signal is a parameter cross-reference to interest_over_time.

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