twitter_trends

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: expected return shape ('{data:[{trend_name, tweet_count}]}'), a concrete usage example, and the authentication requirement ('needs your own key in X_BEARER_TOKEN'). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint annotations.

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 tight and well-structured: one line for purpose, one for return format, one compact example, and one for auth. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 compensates by explicitly listing the return shape. It covers purpose, parameter semantics via examples, and the critical authentication detail. The concise example makes the tool easy to invoke correctly, and the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by providing real WOEID examples (1, 23424977, etc.) and a full example invocation, helping an agent understand what values are meaningful even though the schema also explains them.

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+resource: 'Trending topics for a location by WOEID', with concrete examples (1, US, Australia, UK). This distinguishes it from sibling Twitter tools like twitter_search_recent or twitter_tweet_counts, which focus on search or counts rather than trends.

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?

Gives clear context for use (location-based trending topics), provides a minimally working example, and lists common WOEIDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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