twitter_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Basic behavioral info is present but insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with key info: purpose, WOEID examples, and return format. No unnecessary words, though could be improved by adding parameter details.

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 explains the return structure. However, it does not cover behavior like sorting, pagination, or limits. The max_trends and trend_fields parameters are omitted, leaving gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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%. The description explains the woeid parameter with examples but does not mention max_trends or trend_fields. The return format hint partially compensates for trend_fields but not fully.

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 retrieves trending topics for a location by WOEID, with specific examples of common WOEIDs (1, 23424977, 23424748, 23424975). It distinguishes from sibling twitter tools like twitter_search_recent by focusing on 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?

The description implies usage for getting trending topics by location but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search tweets). No guidance on excluded scenarios or prerequisites.

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