trending_across_countries

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: how trends are grouped (same title, or one country's title appearing among another's queries) and the default geo set when blank.

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 idea first, then mechanism, then parameters. The bulleted param notes are efficient; the only mild waste is repeating 'Pulls Trending Now' which the title already implies.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the essential selection semantics (geo set, cross-country threshold), leaving only the hours and limit parameters unaddressed.

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 carries the full burden. It explains geos (comma-separated codes, max 12, blank = default list of 8 countries) and min_countries (threshold), but leaves hours and limit completely undocumented.

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 names a specific analysis (trends live in several countries at once) and explains the mechanism (pull Trending Now per country, group identical searches). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trending_now and compare_locations.

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 clear context for when this cross-country view applies versus the single-country trending tools, and the 'the stories that travel' framing signals intent. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative or stating when not to use it.

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