get_ranked_trends

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds temporal context ('currently') and ranking semantics, but does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness delays, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and distinguishing feature are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is compressed into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, all parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations cover the behavioral profile. The description supplies the remaining essential context: ranking semantics, current-time scope, and how this tool differs from the two closest siblings. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that ranking is based on week-over-week growth or volume, which directly maps to the sort parameter's 'wow_pct_change' and 'volume' options. This extra semantic context helps the agent choose and set the sort field correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Return currently trending keywords') and immediately clarifies the core differentiator: ranking by week-over-week growth or volume. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, making purpose and distinction clear.

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 states the exact condition for use ('when explicit ranked order matters') and explicitly routes the agent away from this tool to get_top_trends for a simpler current feed and get_trends for historical series. This is textbook usage guidance.

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