trends_hot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states a per-call cost ($0.0155 USDC), p99 latency (5000ms), and the output item shape (rank, title, url, score). It omits auth/payment mechanics and rate-limit or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loads the purpose, then efficiently packs sources, output shape, parameter semantics, cost, and latency into dense but useful prose. Length is justified by the complete absence of schema descriptions, and there is no 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?

For a five-parameter, multi-source aggregator with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides the source list, output fields, parameter defaults, cost, and latency. It still leaves auth/payment mechanics and error behavior unspecified, so it is nearly complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all five parameters, including defaults and ranges, and adds source-specific meaning: language applies to Wikipedia/Google News, country to Google News, since to GitHub. It does not specify country/language code formats beyond defaults, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose: 'What is trending right now' across six named sources, with output fields rank/title/url/score. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like news_search or web_search.

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 trending use case is implied by 'Trending Now (hot lists)' and the source list, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as news_search for broader news retrieval.

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