get_search_trends

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects, but it only states the basic function. It does not reveal that the operation is read-only, or describe error scenarios, data limitations, or return structure.

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 concise, with a structured 'Args' section that adds value. Each sentence is purposeful, but the parameter list could be slightly tighter by relying on the schema for names.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context on expected output, error cases, or how trends are computed, which reduces completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description adds crucial parameter details: format for site_url, date format YYYY-MM-DD, and interval options. However, it omits the default value for interval (week) which is in the schema.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('search trends'), and the scope ('over time for a site'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_time_periods' and 'query_search_analytics' by focusing on trends over time.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer trends over time vs. comparing periods or querying analytics. The description lacks any explicit usage context or exclusions.

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