trmnl_get_search_insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the 30-day window, the 5-user threshold, the most-searched-first ordering, the banded rather than exact counts, and hourly refresh. It does not describe return shape or pagination, which keeps this from a 5.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds threshold, ordering, banding, and freshness in a compact way. The final endpoint line ('TRMNL GET /api/search_insights') is redundant for an agent that already has the tool name and adds little value.

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 simple read-only analytics tool with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, this is complete. The description covers scope, time window, threshold, ordering, aggregation semantics, and freshness, which is everything needed to call it 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?

There is one optional parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with the profile-name meaning and default. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It states a specific verb (read) and a specific resource (search terms that found no plugin or recipe), plus the exact population and time window. An agent can immediately tell this is a zero-result search analytics tool, distinct from catalog search or recipe lookup siblings.

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 makes the data scope clear (no-result searches, 5+ users, last 30 days), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative sibling for related tasks such as catalog search or recipe search, leaving the agent to infer fit.

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