seasonality

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the 5-year weekly data basis, that it is a single request, and that seasonal=null is returned with a reason when fewer than 3 full years exist. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or cost, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return payload, then the edge case. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully names the key fields and the null-return condition. Combined with the keyword-only required parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only parameter-level semantics are missing.

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 both parameters (keyword, geo) are undocumented in structured data. The description never compensates — it does not explain geo semantics (default empty string behavior) or keyword expectations. Parameter names are largely self-evident, which prevents a 1, but the gap is real.

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 names a specific resource and analytical output: when demand for a keyword peaks each year, returning monthly_index, peak_months, seasonal_strength, next_peak and publish_by. It is clearly distinct in spirit from siblings like trending_now or interest_over_time, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from them, which is the one gap separating it from a 5.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for seasonal planning (e.g. publish_by timing), and the null-with-reason edge case is documented. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer interest_over_time/trend_history guidance or any prerequisite statement.

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