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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and openWorld, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: credit costs per network, higher costs for x and instagram_carousel, default networks, and the special instagram_carousel process of finding authors by hashtag and reading their grid.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose and ranking come first, followed by defaults, platform-specific usage, and costs. Every sentence adds operational information without repetition.

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 multi-network search tool with no output schema, the description covers ranking logic, default platforms, platform-specific use cases, and costs. It leaves the exact return structure and pagination behavior unstated, which is a minor remaining 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially platform-selection guidance and per-network credit costs, though it does not elaborate the other parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb and resource: it searches trending posts about a topic and ranks them by trend_score. It also specifies the ranking components and supported networks, so an agent can distinguish this from generic search or mention tools.

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?

It gives clear platform-selection guidance: use instagram_carousel for carousels/photos and reddit/threads for discussions or text, plus the default network set when platforms is omitted. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like trending_now or search_mentions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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