Google trending searches now

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld) but not cost; the description uniquely discloses pricing ($1 per 1,000 keyword reports, $0.50 per 1,000 trending searches), which is critical for a paid, per-result billed tool. It also mentions the available time windows. It does not mention rate limits or result pagination, but adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 the purpose in the first sentence and packs field list, windows, use cases, and cost into a compact block with no filler. The cost line is slightly dense but earns its place given billing implications.

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?

A 5-parameter optional-only tool with no output schema is well served: it describes return fields, time-window constraints, and billing. However, it never explains what the numeric 'increase' means or the format of 'start time', and lacks pagination guidance, which would be useful for an agent consuming results.

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 100%, so parameters (hours, country, max_results, only_active, include_news) are fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the time-window options but adds no new parameter syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('What's trending on Google right now in a country') with an analogy to trends.google.com/trending that immediately conveys the data shape. It enumerates the returned fields and is easily distinguished from siblings like get_google_trends (interest-over-time) versus this real-time trending list.

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 concrete use cases (real-time monitoring, news-jacking, content ideas) that tell the agent when this is the right tool. It doesn't name alternatives like get_google_trends or search_google_news, so the agent must infer routing, but the context is clear.

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