top_subjects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the output's high-level nature, omitting how counts are computed, whether it scans all records, how top_n affects results, or the response format. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 short phrase, which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks a proper sentence structure and essential context, making it more under-specified than concisely informative.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations and two parameters. It provides no context about when to use it, its relationship to sibling tools, or behavioral nuances. The output schema exists but does not compensate for this lack of contextual guidance.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It adds no meaning about top_n or max_records, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's output: most common subject/keyword strings in metadata. It names a specific resource and implies aggregation, but lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from the sibling 'facets' tool.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'facets' or how parameters such as top_n and max_records should be configured.

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