get_trending_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that this is an approximation because GitHub has no official trending endpoint, explains the created-within-window logic, and states ranking by stars accumulated. It does not cover output shape or pagination, but the core approximation behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two information-dense sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the approximation rationale plus sibling distinction fit naturally in the second sentence.

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?

For a no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, approximation method, ranking logic, use case, and the key alternative. The input schema fully documents parameters, making this sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the since enum and all filter properties with defaults and limits. The description reinforces the time-window concept and ranking, but adds minimal new meaning beyond structured field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Surface repos that are new and already gaining traction'), clearly defining what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from search_github_repos, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is good for open-ended exploration like 'what's hot in agent frameworks right now' and contrasts it with search_github_repos, which 'needs a specific query.' This is a clear when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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