twitter_trends

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: default Worldwide behavior, precedence rules, returned timestamps and resolved location, and count truncation. The final sentence about 'A location X will not serve returns a 400' is garbled and slightly undermines the transparency, but the overall behavioral picture is strong.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the final sentence is malformed ('A location X will not serve returns a 400') and does not communicate clearly, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job covering what the caller gets back: resolved location, as_of/created_at timestamps, and ranked trends. It also covers defaults and parameter precedence, making it largely self-sufficient, though the error-case sentence needs repair for full clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter definitions. The description adds value by clarifying inter-parameter behavior: woeid precedence over country, country resolution against the locations list, omission meaning Worldwide, and count truncation semantics. This goes beyond a simple restatement of the schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current top trends for a location.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like twitter_trends_locations, which is about available locations rather than the trends themselves.

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 clear usage context: no location returns Worldwide, country or woeid can be used, and woeid wins if both are given. It implies the companion tool twitter_trends_locations as the source for woeids, though it does not explicitly say 'use twitter_trends_locations to find WOEIDs'.

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