trends_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by mentioning the crawler runs every 3 days, implying data freshness behavior, and describes the output content (hook, template, pattern, virality reason). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, require authentication, or mention any side effects. The cadence disclosure is useful, but the description omits broader behavioral details like pagination or rate limits.

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 four sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: scope, output contents, crawler cadence, and supported values. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a list for supported niches/platforms), but it remains compact and efficient without unnecessary filler.

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 is fairly complete for a tool with no output schema. It explains what each returned post includes, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It covers scope (niche/platform), data freshness (crawler cadence), and supported values. It does not explicitly state authentication requirements or error handling, but given its simplicity and the presence of comprehensive schema descriptions, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all five parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond this: it reiterates the default for 'days' and lists supported niches/platforms, which are already documented in the schema. Since the schema fully explains each parameter, the description need not duplicate that effort, but it also introduces no additional parameter-specific guidance.

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 primary function: 'Browse top-trending posts (with deconstructions) for a niche + platform.' It uses a specific verb ('browse') and identifies the resource ('top-trending posts'). It also distinguishes itself from brand-specific tools by noting it is 'Account/niche-scoped — NOT tied to a specific brand,' making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: it targets niches and platforms, and it explicitly states what it is NOT ('NOT tied to a specific brand'), which serves as a when-not. It also gives practical guidance on the 'days' parameter ('use days=3 (default) for the freshest batch') based on the crawler cadence. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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