trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states that topics are 'trending across your feeds in the last N hours.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how trending is computed, whether results are sorted, what happens with empty feeds, or what the returned topics look like beyond what the output schema provides.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loads the core concept with no filler words. However, it is under-specified rather than tightly specified—brevity here comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter information, so the sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is covered elsewhere, and the tool is low-complexity with two optional params. But at 0% schema parameter coverage and no annotations, the description still fails to differentiate from siblings like 'recent' and 'digest', explain 'limit', or define the trending criteria—leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies that 'hours' controls the look-back window via 'in the last N hours', but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, leaving its behavior (maximum number of topics returned) undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb ('trending'), resource ('topics across your feeds'), and time window ('last N hours'). It is distinct enough from siblings like search and refresh to convey the core function, though it does not define what 'trending' means (e.g., ranked by engagement, velocity, or mentions) or how it differs from 'recent'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'recent' or 'digest'. The description implies it is for surfacing currently popular topics, but it never states exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use recent for chronological listing' or 'use digest for summaries'), leaving tool selection to inference.

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