get_trending_users_in_specific_country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions fetching data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'trending' means (e.g., based on time frame or metrics). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying the parameter discrepancy or adding a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (fetching trending users with posts), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trending' entails, the format of returned data (e.g., user details, post content), or any limitations. While it states the purpose, more context is needed for an AI agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there's no parameter information to add. The description mentions 'target country passed as parameter', which might confuse an agent since the schema indicates no parameters. However, this could imply the country is inferred from context or hardcoded, but it doesn't clarify. Given the baseline of 4 for 0 parameters, the score is 4, but the ambiguity slightly detracts.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('trending users and their most popular post'), with the specific scope 'for target country passed as parameter'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_trending_hashtags_for_specific_country' by focusing on users rather than hashtags. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user-related tools (e.g., 'find_user_by_username'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when you want trending users in a specific country. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_user_by_username' or 'get_trending_hashtags_for_specific_country', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit comparison reduces its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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