Google Trends Scraper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about execution: it doesn't mention that this triggers an external scraping run (hinted only by the waitSeconds parameter text mentioning an Apify run), how long runs take, what happens on partial failures, or rate limiting. An agent cannot predict cost or latency from this sentence.

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 zero filler and the core capability front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though the extreme brevity is achieved by omitting information rather than by efficient structuring.

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?

For an 8-parameter batch scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too thin: it doesn't clarify the shape of the three result types it promises, nor the meaning of the comparison modes that govern how multiple keywords are handled. An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at runtime behavior.

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 only 38%, leaving gprop, category, keywords, anchorKeyword, and comparisonMode undocumented, and the description compensates for none of them. Notably, anchorKeyword and comparisonMode (chunk vs anchor) are non-obvious controls that materially change results, and the description never explains them or the 100-keyword batch cap.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Fetch') and names the specific data it returns (interest over time, regions, related queries) scoped to 'a list of keywords', which is clearly distinct from all five siblings (sitemap, SEO audit, screenshot, app reviews, PDF conversion). It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't reference the batch/Apify-run nature implied by the name and waitSeconds.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the batch size limits or runtime behavior that would tell an agent whether this is appropriate for a given request. The description reads as a capability statement only.

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