get_title_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the comparison timeframe but doesn't disclose output format, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are cached. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides insufficient operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two clear, information-dense sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial temporal context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 analytical nature, no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context about return values, data format, and operational constraints. It's minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get titles gaining or losing demand') and resource ('titles'), with precise temporal scope ('compares the last 2 weeks vs prior 2 weeks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_top_titles' by focusing on trend analysis rather than static rankings.

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 implies usage for analyzing title demand trends over a specific 4-week comparison period, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_titles' or 'get_stats_overview'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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