trending_now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the return format (top queries, traffic, news articles), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words or clauses, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, output, and parameter sufficiently. However, it could mention that only one day's data is returned or clarify the 'estimated traffic' metric.

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?

Only one parameter (geo) with full schema description coverage (100%). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's description of a two-letter country code. 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 gets daily trending searches from Google Trends for a country, and specifies it returns top trending queries with traffic estimates and news articles. This uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like interest_over_time 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 implies usage for fetching current trending searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., interest_over_time for historical trends). No when-not or direct comparisons are provided.

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