x_trends_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: geography is unknown unless supplied, and certain categories (news/sport/entertainment) require a session. This discloses operational constraints that an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 brief, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence is slightly dense but conveys key constraints efficiently. No filler words; every phrase 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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and no output schema explanation (though output schema exists, it doesn't cover parameters), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination (cursor), result size (limit), and detail level. The 'provider-context' phrase is undefined. An agent would need to probe or guess for correct usage.

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 the parameters. It only partially addresses the 'category' parameter by noting that news/sport/entertainment require a session, but it does not explain limit, cursor, or detail. This leaves most parameters undefined, forcing the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read provider-context trends.' It is distinct from siblings like x_post_get or x_user_get, and the phrase 'provider-context' adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with x_search, which could also return trending content, so it falls short of a 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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this when you need trends' or 'use x_search for general queries.' The only contextual hints are the geography and session caveats, which do not address tool selection.

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