ariel_get_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: it discloses reliance on an unspecced endpoint that may change, flagging potential instability. It does not go into rate limits or response shape, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

A single sentence plus a high-value parenthetical. The purpose is front-loaded and the stability warning earns its place; there is zero wasted text.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, this is adequate. The main gap is that with no output schema present, the description does not describe the return shape or what the 'digest' format produces beyond the enum label. An agent can still call it correctly, but a bit more return-value context would round it out.

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%, so limit and format are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (trending topics on Bluesky). No sibling tool covers trending topics, so it is immediately distinguishable from ariel_get_timeline, ariel_get_feed, and the search tools.

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 implied by the purpose statement — an agent wanting trending topics would select this — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The endpoint-stability warning is about reliability, not usage routing.

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