interest_by_region

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only reveals that results are geographically aggregated and offers resolution choices; it does not state read-only behavior, output ordering, limits, pagination, or date-window handling. Too little behavioral context for a tool that could return anything from a ranking table to raw search-volume data.

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 short and places the core purpose first, with the resolution semantics following immediately. It is compact and scannable, though it omits detail rather than wasting words.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters scrub coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, this description is materially incomplete. An agent would not know how to set geo, gprop, or time range, nor what the response structure implies. The presence of an output schema helps, but the invocation context is under-specified.

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 effectively 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the resolution parameter and hints at the keyword input, but leaves geo, gprop, limit, category, and timeframe entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid calls without extra inference.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: locating where a keyword is searched most, which distinguishes it from the sibling interest and comparison tools. The resolution list adds concreteness by showing the geographic scopes it supports, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'Where a keyword is searched most' gives a reasonable indication to use this tool for geographic search-interest questions. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over siblings like compare_keywords or interest_over_time, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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