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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context by stating it 'runs extraction and serialization internally,' implying internal processing beyond a simple read. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or idempotency implications. Since annotations carry some burden, this is a modest but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Find relevant content trends for a URL') and immediately followed by a clarifying note on output scope. No wasted words or redundant detail.

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?

With an output schema available, the return structure is covered elsewhere. The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and high-level output ('compact industry, trend, and citation data only'). It could mention how parameters like country and language influence results, but the schema already explains those. For a discovery tool, this is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (url, country, language, extraction_mode) is documented. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Find relevant content trends for a URL.' It specifies the resource (URL), the verb (find), and the output (trends, industry, citation data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sleepwalker_content_run (which creates runs) or get_sleepwalker_content_run_status (which checks status).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, the lack of context on when to choose this over others leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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