discover_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses de-duplication, ranking logic, angle tagging, question aggregation, and per-seed partial failure reporting. This goes well beyond a generic summary and tells the agent what to expect.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The use case is front-loaded, followed by output behavior and failure semantics, and every clause contributes actionable detail.

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?

Output behavior is well covered and an output schema exists, so return values are not a gap. However, the optional filtering parameters (geo, gprop, category, timeframe) are not explained, and there is no guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool. Adequate for default calls but not fully complete.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics only for seed_keywords ('1-5') and indirectly for max_per_seed ('per seed'), while geo, gprop, category, and timeframe are left unexplained; gprop in particular is opaque.

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 composite behavior: one-shot topic discovery that pulls trend direction and related queries, de-duplicates, and ranks candidates as breakout > rising > evergreen with an `angle` tag. This distinguishes it from siblings like related_queries and related_topics by describing an aggregated, ranked, blog-oriented result.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'one-shot topic discovery for blog ideation' and constrains input to 1-5 seed keywords, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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