Google Trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: explicit cost on the user's Apify account ($1 per 1,000 keyword reports, $0.50 per 1,000 trending searches) and the 'Breakout' flag semantics in results. It doesn't discuss latency or failure modes, keeping it below 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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the configurable dimensions, then the use case, then pricing. Dense but every clause carries information; the pricing sentence is long but is the only place that cost is disclosed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does, listing the trend metrics, regions, related searches and Breakout flags. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 0–100 comparison scale, geo granularity examples (US, GB, US-CA), the time-range span ('past hour to all time'), and the search types — reinforcing rather than merely repeating field names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve Google Trends data for up to 5 keywords, with an explicit enumeration of the returned signals (interest over time, average/latest/peak, regions, related searches). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_trending_searches or the search_google_* family.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('demand and seasonality research', 'compare brands or topics') and the conditions it supports (country/region, time range, search type). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it versus get_trending_searches, so it stops short of the top score.

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