get_trending_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what data is returned (trend direction, change percentage, sparkline data) and the sorting logic (by growth rate). It does not discuss rate limits or refresh cadence, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 that communicates purpose, scope, sorting, and output data. It is front-loaded and contains no filler 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and the nature of its output well. There is no output schema, so the mention of trend direction, change percentage, and sparkline data is valuable. It could mention pagination or refresh cadence, but for a simple trending list with optional limit, 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 input schema already provides complete parameter descriptions, covering limit, locale, and metric. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving currently trending World MiniApps sorted by growth rate. It also includes the key differentiator (trending vs. search/details/reviews), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 context: it is for identifying trending apps by growth rate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the unique 'trending' focus sufficiently implies its use case relative to the sibling tools.

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