get_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool analyzes trends and returns a list, but lacks details on whether it's read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The return format is partially described but behavioral specifics are missing.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose, usage bullet points, and clear Args/Returns sections. It is concise without unnecessary repetition, though the usage list could be integrated more succinctly.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects (Args, Returns, usage). However, it omits error handling, authentication requirements, and more detailed behavioral traits, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the description must supplement. It includes an Args block explaining each parameter: topic with an example, max_results range, and source options. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's defaults and titles.

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 trends by topic and distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on trending topics rather than general search results. It explicitly lists use cases like content planning and audience research.

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 usage cases ('content plan, audience research, finding current topics') but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. The sibling tools are search functions, implying differentiation, but no direct comparison.

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