Get Trending Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety and stability are covered. The description adds useful context that results derive from real user engagement and cover a weekly window, but it doesn't warn that the ranking is time-sensitive/volatile or explain ordering, which would matter for a non-idempotent tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. The second sentence is mildly expendable but earns some of its place by defining the time window and category breadth.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described) and full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Only the lack of sibling guidance and ranking-order notes keeps it from a 5.

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% and the sole parameter 'limit' already documents its default, maximum and meaning, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the currently trending AI tools'), plus scope ('this week across all categories'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like search_ai_tools or whats_new by topic. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those discovery-oriented siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'trending... based on real user engagement data' signals a discovery/popularity lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (whats_new, get_site_stats, search_ai_tools). An agent must infer the selection condition.

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