Tendencias de búsqueda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond scope: no data source, timeframe, refresh cadence, or result size. For a trends/analytics read with zero annotation depth beyond read-only, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than waste.

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 and no required parameters keep the bar low, and the description conveys what the tool returns conceptually. Missing timeframe, result limits, and the meaning of the 'cuenta' parameter leave it adequate but not complete.

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 only 33% (only 'cuenta' is documented), so the description carries meaningful weight: 'del sitio o de una categoría' maps directly to sitio and categoria and explains their effect on results. However it says nothing about 'cuenta', the undocumented parameter, so the compensation is partial.

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 resource ('las búsquedas más populares') and its two scopes (site or category), plus the business meaning (what people want to buy). It is clear and distinguishable from most siblings, but never names a sibling it should not be confused with (e.g. ml_buscar, ml_descubrir_ganadores).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ml_buscar or ml_novedades_competencia. Usage must be inferred purely from the one-line purpose statement.

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