lemon_trend_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, informational report but does not state side effects, output structure, or any constraints. The only behavioral hint is 'optionally filter by id,' which is already in 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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core identity and immediately gives actionable guidance, while the optional filter is stated briefly at the end.

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 description covers what the tool is and when to call it, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves the return format and content details unspecified. For a simple read-only report with one optional parameter, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the one parameter is already well described with examples. The description adds only 'Optionally filter to one trend by id,' which restates the schema without meaningful new semantics. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as a trend report for 2026 web design and motion, with a clear role ('Call BEFORE designing a site'). It is reasonably distinct from siblings like lemon_design_principles and lemon_motion_recipe, though it relies on the name and context rather than explicitly contrasting them.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'Call BEFORE designing a site.' It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the timing instruction is clear and actionable for an agent.

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