Trending titles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are capped at 'limit' and ordered most-popular-first, which tells the agent how to interpret the return list.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then usage triggers, then return behavior. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the result cap and ordering, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no note on how person entries differ from movie/TV entries in the result set), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, with limit, language, media_type and time_window all thoroughly documented including enums and defaults. The description only restates the limit default and media-type scope, adding nothing the schema doesn't already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List what is trending now') and enumerates the scope ('movies, TV shows, people, or all three mixed'), so an agent immediately knows this returns currently-popular items. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like search_titles or discover_movies, but the time-based popularity framing is distinct enough.

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 concrete trigger questions ('what is popular today', 'what are people watching this week'), which is clear usage context. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_titles or discover_movies), so the routing guidance stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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