interest_over_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the 0-100 scale, per-keyword summary fields, downsampling to ~60 points, and valid gprop values — good behavioral context. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, any authentication prerequisites, rate limits, or behavior for invalid keyword counts, though the 'search-interest' wording makes mutation unlikely.

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 succinct: three sentences contain zero filler and front-load the core purpose. The single-line gprop value list is an efficient way to convey allowed values. Every phrase earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema description, the description leaves too much unexplained. It fails to explain the crucial optional parameters geo, category, and timeframe, and does not specify their formatting or intended use. While the output schema exists, the description is incomplete for correctly using the tool's full feature set.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only gprop (with accepted string values) and keywords, while geo, category, and timeframe are completely absent. An agent cannot know what geo/category values mean or how timeframe strings like 'today 12-m' relate to output; thus the description only partially covers parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's function: search-interest time series for 1-5 keywords with per-keyword summaries. It differentiates from some siblings (e.g., interest_by_region) through temporal focus, but it does not explicitly contrast with closely related tools like compare_keywords, which could also provide time-series comparisons.

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 description implies a usage scenario — needing search interest over time — but doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The 1-5 keyword limit gives a partial constraint, but won't guide an agent to prefer compare_keywords or related_queries.

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