analyze_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Returns growth rates, volatility, trend direction, and more,' which gives some insight into output behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or specifics about statistical methods, and there is no mention that the operation is read-only. The description adds limited context beyond the schema.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then list key outputs. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. A slight deduction because it could have packed more useful guidance (e.g., a usage tip) without much extra length.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the description lacks context about when to use this analysis tool versus siblings like compare_countries or rank_countries. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., valid indicator codes) or limitations. Given the presence of a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but not rich enough for a higher score.

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%, meaning all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add new meaning about parameters, such as how 'years' affects the trend analysis or how 'include_stats' changes output. Since the schema already documents all parameters, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyze time-series trend with statistical insights.' It specifies the resource (time-series trend) and the action (analyze), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_data (fetching) and plot_chart (visualizing). The added details about output ('growth rates, volatility, trend direction') further clarify its unique role.

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 implies usage for trend analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or state conditions like 'use this when you need statistical summaries rather than raw data or charts.' The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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