trend_momentum

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: each term is normalized to its own scale so small terms aren't flattened, and the five-label taxonomy (breakout/rising/stable/declining/new) is disclosed. It does not state rate limits or how the scale is computed, but this is genuinely additive context.

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?

The opening line is front-loaded and useful, but the second paragraph is a long comma-run that lists metrics in prose where a compact list would read faster. Nothing is outright wasted, yet the phrasing is denser than it needs to be.

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, the description need not explain return values, yet it spends most of its length doing exactly that while omitting usage guidance and parameter meaning. For a read-only analysis tool with 0% schema coverage, it is adequate but leaves the invocation side underspecified.

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% and four of five parameters (geo, category, property, timeframe) are entirely undocumented anywhere. The description contributes only the implicit cap of 8 keywords, leaving geo/category/property/timeframe formats and defaults unexplained, which is a real gap for a 5-param tool.

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-and-resource: it measures whether each keyword is growing, fading, flat or exploding, and enumerates the per-term metrics and labels. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts a sibling (interest_over_time, trend_details, seasonality), so an agent must infer where it fits in the family.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion pointing to an alternative tool. The description only explains what the output contains, leaving the agent to guess when momentum is the right call versus interest_over_time or compare_periods.

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