get_trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by a real-time heat index and come from two platforms, and it enumerates the content types. While it does not mention authentication, response format, or side effects, for a read-only trending fetcher it provides substantial behavioral context.

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, with the first sentence front-loading the action and resource, and the second giving a concrete use case. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still manages to convey the essence of what is returned (hottest content types ranked by heat index) and the platforms involved. It could mention the result structure more explicitly, but for a simple list-fetch tool with three optional parameters, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the ranking concept. It does not elaborate on filter behavior beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies a clear resource: trending/hot content on WeTV and Tencent Video. It further specifies the content types and ranking method, distinguishing it from siblings like get_popular by emphasizing the real-time heat index and specific platforms.

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 a clear use case ('what's hot right now' or 'what should I watch'), making it easy for an agent to know when to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_popular, so it stops short of a 5.

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