related_topics

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: the auth requirement (GTRENDS_COOKIE or GTRENDS_COOKIES_FILE) and the fact that it reports emptiness honestly rather than fabricating data. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 what the tool returns, then the crucial caveat in a second paragraph. Two sentences in the caveat are slightly verbose but every sentence carries useful information.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the auth caveat is well covered, but for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the definition is incomplete on inputs. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 six parameters (geo, limit, keyword, category, property, timeframe), and the description only alludes to a search 'term' without documenting any of them. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the semantics of most inputs to the caller's guesswork.

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 states a specific resource (topics searched alongside a term, top and rising, with topic ids), which is clear enough to distinguish from related_queries, which it names. It is phrased as a noun list rather than an explicit verb, but the content is unambiguous.

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 a clear conditional: without a signed-in cookie the tool usually returns empty, and related_queries works either way, effectively steering the agent to the alternative when unauthenticated. It does not cover geo/limit/timeframe selection choices.

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