search_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates discussions from multiple named platforms, but it does not elaborate on result behavior, limitations, or return format. The description is not misleading but leaves behavioral details unmentioned.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a value statement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 return values are likely covered structurally. However, the description lacks parameter guidance and explicit usage boundaries, making the tool only minimally complete. For a search tool with three parameters and a sibling set, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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%, and the description never mentions the parameters (query, limit, sources) or their semantics. With three parameters entirely undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid requests.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and a defined scope ('practitioner discussions and trends on Hacker News, Stack Overflow and the Electronics Stack Exchange'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers and search_code, which target different resource types.

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 practical context for when to use the tool: 'Useful as a signal of real-world relevance and for practical questions about a technology.' This gives clear use-case guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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