find_trending_niches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety burden. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only operation, and 'currently trending' and 'across all configured market sources' add some behavioral context, but the description does not disclose rate limits, caching, or return behavior (though output schema exists).

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 sentences plus a compact Args list. Every sentence carries meaning, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool is simple with only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidance but that is captured in the usage_guidelines dimension; overall, it is complete enough for selection/invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'category' biases results toward a category with examples, and 'limit' caps the number of returned niches. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('trending niche keywords'), and adds scope ('across all configured market sources'). This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like research_market.

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 tool is for discovering current niche trends but does not explicitly define when to use it over alternatives like research_market or extract_customer_pain_points. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance.

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