get_trending_posts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get trending posts from Velog'. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, what 'trending' means, how the response is structured, or any pagination behavior. The read-only nature is evident, but the description fails to add behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation, though it might benefit from an additional clause about the response format.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the tool lacks sufficient contextual detail. It does not explain what 'trending' is based on, what the response looks like, or how pagination integrates with the overall API. The simplicity of the tool mitigates this, but the gaps remain significant.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, timeframe), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about these parameters, but the schema descriptions are already sufficient.

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 verb 'Get' and a specific resource ('trending posts') with a source ('Velog'). It inherently differentiates from sibling tools like get_user_posts or search_posts because 'trending' defines a distinct category.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The name and description imply a use case for discovering popular content, but it does not state exclusions or recommend other tools for different types of queries (e.g., search_posts for specific searches).

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