analyze_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it computes results on demand or reads cached aggregates, whether a specific run state is required, or any cost/rate considerations — only what is analyzed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the analytical scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than purely a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine prerequisites (e.g., a completed run) or how to supply run_id/need_id correctly.

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?

Both parameters (run_id, need_id) have 0% schema description coverage and are never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no explanation of their format, source, or constraints. With two undocumented parameters this is a real gap rather than the 4 baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 names a specific verb (analyze) and a precise scope (temporal persistence and monthly trajectory of evidence for a need cluster), which distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_evidence or comparison siblings like compare_evidence. It does not name any alternative tool, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_evidence, compare_evidence, or get_coverage, nor any prerequisites such as requiring a completed run or an existing need cluster. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'temporal persistence and monthly trajectory'.

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