compare_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns time series, averages, and identifies the highest interest, expanding on the output behavior without contradicting annotations. This adds moderate value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single sentence that is concise yet informative. It front-loads the main action and deliverables, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's functionality.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (time series, averages, highest interest term). Given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters (geo, terms, timeframe) with defaults and constraints. The description does not add additional meanings beyond the schema, which is acceptable. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: compare 2-5 search terms using Google Trends normalized interest scores, and specifies the outputs (time series, averages, highest interest). It distinguishes from siblings like interest_over_time (single term) and related_queries.

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 specifies that 2-5 terms are required, which is a key constraint. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, the sibling names (e.g., interest_over_time, related_queries) imply the context. A clear usage guideline would improve this dimension.

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