kwfinder_trends

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no mention of request parameters, response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The tool is a complete black box beyond the generic 'Get' action.

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 description is extremely short and lacks substance. While it is technically concise, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Every word is generic and does not earn its place by adding operational value.

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?

Given the complete absence of annotations, an output schema, or any useful parameter information, this description is grossly inadequate. The tool is one of many KWFinder endpoints, and the description fails to explain what 'trends' means, what inputs it takes, or what the agent can expect back. It is unusable for correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema describes the two generic fields as 'Optional JSON request body' and 'Optional query string parameters', these are boilerplate and provide no tool-specific meaning. The description adds no details about what parameters 'trends' expects (e.g., keyword, country, date range). The agent has no way to construct a meaningful request.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get KWFinder trends'), but 'trends' is ambiguous—does it refer to historical search volume trends, keyword trend data, or something else? It does not distinctly differentiate from sibling tools like kwfinder_keyword_details or kwfinder_related_keywords, though the resource name is unique enough to hint at a distinct endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply restates the action without helping the agent decide between this and the many other KWFinder tools.

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