x_api_get_trends_personalized_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explicitly states 'Risk: read-only', details required OAuth scopes and token types, explains environment-selection behavior with scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, provides expected response shape, lists common failure conditions, and includes a safety warning about sensitive data. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.) and front-loaded purpose. Every section adds value, and the example at the end aids understanding. Despite its length, it remains concise for the complexity it covers.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, auth prerequisites, environment selection, response shape, failure conditions, recommended companion tools, safety, and an example. This fully equips an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well for several parameters. It explains that scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId selects the tenant principal, and that credentialKey selects a non-default credential profile. However, it does not explicitly describe authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, and the statement 'no endpoint-specific parameters' offers limited format guidance.

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 'Get personalized Trends' with a specific verb and resource, and the name itself differentiates it from the sibling tool x_api_get_trends_by_woeid. However, it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling or elaborate on what 'personalized' entails, so it stops short of fully distinguishing itself.

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 a 'Use when' section that restates the purpose ('Get personalized Trends') and a 'Do not use when' section that advises exploration tools like x_schema_discovery. It gives some context for when to use this tool vs. exploration but does not compare it with alternative trends endpoints or specify when to prefer one over another.

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