graze_trending

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

No annotations and no output schema are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it says nothing about return shape, pagination, ordering of trending items, rate limits, or authentication. The only behavioral hint is the implicit read-only nature of 'Return'.

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?

Two short clauses with the core verb leading and parameter notes trailing; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic phrasing ('limit 1-50') is efficient but slightly clipped.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what trending content looks like when returned. The parameter guidance is adequate, but the return-value gap and absence of any behavioral context leave it only minimally complete for an agent calling it cold.

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 has to compensate, and it does useful work: it bounds 'limit' to 1-50 (the schema only shows a default of 10) and tells the agent where valid 'platform' values come from via graze_platforms(). It omits defaults and the platform string format, so it is not fully complete.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return trending content') with a scoping qualifier ('on a platform'), so an agent can tell it fetches trending items rather than a feed or discovery results. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (graze_feed, graze_discover) to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'trending'; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over graze_feed or graze_discover. The 'see graze_platforms()' pointer is a parameter hint, not a usage guideline.

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