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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes useful behavioral detail by explaining that the response includes a hype score meant to differentiate genuine moves from noise, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence earns its place: it states what is returned, the ranking criterion, and the meaning of the included hype score, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations that establish the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a simple listing tool. It could add specifics on ordering or timeframe, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter detail, but there are no parameters requiring explanation.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Assets trending now by social activity') and adds a distinguishing element, the hype score, that separates this from sibling tools like get_trending_stories or get_asset_social_signal. Even without naming alternatives, the social-activity and asset scope sets it apart from the other get_* siblings.

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 implies the use case: retrieve currently trending assets ranked by social activity and evaluate them with the hype score. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_trending_stories, get_creator_rankings, or get_asset_social_signal, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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