trending_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the ~24h freshness window, geographic scoping, approximate traffic, and linked headlines. It does not cover data caveats or response behavior in depth, but provides a reasonable baseline.

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 tight sentences front-load the core behavior, scope, and output contents, followed by a practical use case. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 read-oriented tool with an output schema and optional parameters, the description supplies enough context: time range, geo scope, output elements, and intended use. Minor gaps remain around exact geo format and max_articles semantics, but these are not blocking.

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 clarifies that geo refers to a country or US state and hints at max_articles through 'linked news headlines', but it never explicitly ties max_articles to the number of headlines returned.

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 as returning real-time trending searches for a country or US state, with approximate traffic and linked news headlines. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interest_over_time or related_queries, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

'Good for newsjacking' gives a clear, actionable use case and implies the tool is for time-sensitive, content-relevant trend discovery. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic routing.

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