seasonality

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context: the 5-year default, that 'all' extends to 2004, and that growth/decline is detrended so rising terms are not mistaken for seasonal. This detrending disclosure is behavioral context the annotations cannot provide.

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 core purpose and the parenthetical asides are efficient, though the return-value list in the middle sentence is somewhat baggy and the trailing lead_weeks definition feels detached.

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 describing return fields is optional (though done well). However, for a 6-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, leaving geo/category/property semantics entirely unexplained is a real 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains timeframe ('all' = back to 2004) and defines lead_weeks, but geo, category, and property remain undocumented in both schema and 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 opening sentence names a specific analysis (seasonal rhythm of a term: peak/dip months, reliability, publishing timing) with a clear verb-resource framing. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like interest_over_time (raw series) or content_calendar (scheduling).

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 only implied - the tool is for understanding seasonality and choosing a publish date - but the description never says when to prefer it over interest_over_time, compare_periods, or content_calendar. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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