search_trending_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Busca' / searches) and mentions the output, but it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, pagination, or safety characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and return value. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 simple parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it covers the core purpose and the return fields. The schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks any notes on result limits, ordering defaults, or potential variations in output, which would be useful for a complete picture.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only repeats the concept of 'tema ou keyword' for the query parameter, adding no extra meaning or nuance about parameters like order, maxResults, or regionCode.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Busca' / searches), resource ('vídeos em alta no YouTube' / trending YouTube videos), and scope (for a topic or keyword). It also lists the returned fields (title, channel, views, link), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_trending_keywords that search for keywords rather than videos.

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 on when to use the tool: when searching for trending YouTube videos by topic or keyword. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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