trending_topics_tool

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

Lacks annotations, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the ranking is based on 'recent publication and citation activity,' it fails to disclose caching behavior, rate limits, how 'trending' is calculated, or whether results are real-time.

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?

Single sentence is efficient with no redundancy, but severely under-delivers content given the complete absence of parameter documentation and behavioral context. Structure is adequate but insufficiently detailed.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing descriptive burden), the tool fails to document its two optional parameters or clarify temporal scope. For a discovery tool with undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate.

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 coverage is 0% for both 'days' and 'limit' parameters. The description completely fails to compensate by explaining the time window (days) or result count (limit), leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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?

States a clear resource (trending topics) and methodology (publication and citation activity), distinguishing it from general social media trending tools. However, uses weak verb 'See' rather than 'Retrieve' or 'Get', and could explicitly mention the scholarly/academic domain implied by the sibling tools.

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?

Contains no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like search_scrolls_tool or browse_domain_tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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