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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read; the description goes further by detailing the returned formula, timeline, and audio-specific fields (sound link, copyright status, filming script). It lacks error or pagination behavior, but for a read-only detail call the added output context is strong.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the main outcome ('Full audio + visual formula') and then enumerate specifics without filler. Every phrase earns its place by mapping to actual returned data.

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 a one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (timeline, blueprint, audio fields) and the originating tool context. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'trendId from find_trends_for_business'; the description repeats the source relation but adds no syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already covers the parameter.

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+resource ('details of one trend') and enumerates the return contents (pacing, visual style, transitions, captions, timeline, blueprint), clearly distinguishing it from find_trends_for_business. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Names the originating tool ('from find_trends_for_business') and the one required input source, giving clear context for when to call it. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives like search_trending_audio, but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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