reach_hot

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of content returned (trending lists from specific platforms) and hints at regional filtering for news. However, it does not describe output format, error behavior, or safety profile (e.g., read-only). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, information-dense sentence using list syntax and parentheses. It front-loads the purpose ('Trending listings') and efficiently conveys multiple source types. Minor readability friction from compact formatting, but no wasted words.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality and parameter hints for platform and region. Missing details on output format, limit behavior, error cases, and full parameter range. Adequate for simple tools but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists possible platform values (hackernews, news, discourse) and mentions region possibilities ('india | western'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not address the limit parameter or explicitly map the region parameter to news. Partial coverage.

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 explicitly states it provides 'Trending listings' and lists specific sources (hackernews, news, discourse) with details on what each contains (front page, headlines, top topics). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reach_search (search) or reach_read (read).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for trending content but does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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