goat_trending_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the data is credential-free public data, which imparts important auth expectations. It also clarifies the ordering and recency ('currently surfacing as popular'), but it doesn't mention any potential rate limits, pagination, or update frequency for the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The opening sentence gives the purpose, the second explains what differentiates the result, and the third gives usage guidance and credentials. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or verbosity.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the return semantics: it lists search terms in GOAT's ranking order, describes them as ready to use in a query, and confirms public access. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and indeed it doesn't, which is appropriate. It does mention the expected format of the return value (free-text search terms), which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Get GOAT trending searches.' It effectively differentiates itself from GOAT's search tools (like goat_search or goat_suggest) by specifying that it returns the search terms GOAT surfaces as popular, in its own ranking order. This makes it obvious what the tool does and why it exists.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and even shows how to chain it with GET /goat/search, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. The usage context is strong, but it lacks direct 'use this instead of X' instructions, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.

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