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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is free, it is signed by the service wallet when signing is configured, and legs without a loaded pair return NOT-LOADED / NO-TREND-CLAIM rather than inventing a trend. It omits details like response shape and error behavior, but the key output-state and payment/signing context is present.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and no clause is pure filler, but the single run-on sentence packs semicolon-joined jargon (per-leg, category-share movement, compared releases) that takes effort to parse. Structuring into discrete sentences would improve clarity without adding length.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (per-leg, per-source movement between two named/dated releases) and how missing data is represented. Coverage is solid; only granular return formatting is absent, which matters less given there are no inputs to misconfigure.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and none is given or required.

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 states a specific resource: the current weekly Trending Digest edition, with per-leg category-share movement computed within each source across its own two compared releases. It also scopes what the tool is not (no cross-source ranking, no composite score). It doesn't explicitly name siblings like trending_digest_sample or trending_digest_request, so differentiation is inferred from 'current weekly edition' rather than stated.

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?

'FREE' and 'current weekly edition' imply context, and the exclusions hint at when not to use it for cross-source comparison. However, there is no explicit routing between this and the sibling criteria/request/sample tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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