trending_now

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior in the 'contains' whole-word matching rule and the note that categories appear in the result header, but it says nothing about pagination/limit behavior or rate limits, which are real gaps for a list tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a tight bullet list of parameters; almost every line carries new information. Slightly telegraphic fragment style but no wasted 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is parameter meaning — which is largely met for a zero-coverage schema. Only limit and min_volume semantics are missing, a minor completeness 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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does document six of eight parameters with concrete meaning: geo syntax (US, GB, DE, IR, US-CA), hours values, category examples, status and sort_by options, and the whole-word semantics of contains. limit and min_volume are left undocumented, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 verb and resource — retrieve the full Trending Now list for a country or region — and scopes it to real-time search behavior. It is clear, but it never names how it differs from close siblings such as trending_feed, snapshot_trending or trending_history, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 through the documented filters (status active/ended/all, sort_by, category) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There are no explicit exclusions or pointer to an alternative tool, leaving selection among the many trending_* siblings to inference.

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