trend_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is local and free with no network requests, constrains `days` to 1-365, and explains the semantics of breakout_episodes (>= 3 = recurring, durable page) versus breakout_observations (polling count). It stops short of stating any auth or permission requirements.

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?

Single dense sentence with the core 'local archive' framing front-loaded, followed by field semantics and the free/no-network note. The parenthetical detail earns its place, though the sentence is long and packed.

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-value documentation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still outlines the key fields. The only real gap for an agent is the unexplained `geo` parameter; otherwise the tool is adequately covered for a local read.

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. It explains `keyword` (seed or related query under other seeds) and bounds `days` to 1-365, but says nothing about the `geo` parameter, leaving one of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 specific resource — a local archive of observations about a keyword — and distinguishes itself from live-data siblings by noting it 'makes no network requests'. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling tools it contrasts with.

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: 'local archive' and 'Free: makes no network requests' suggest reaching for this instead of live-fetching tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative.

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