peck_trending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the 30-day window, the ranking by post count, and 'Cached 60s'. However, it remains implicit that this is a read-only operation)Skip output shape, pagination, and authorization requirements.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes information: the first gives the ranking metric and time window, and the second adds the network-level context and cache TTL.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection logic, time window, and caching behavior. The missing output shape is a minor gap because 'top channels' strongly implies a ranked list of channels.

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 single `limit` parameter is already fully documented in the input schema, including default and maximum values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('top channels') and the exact ranking criterion ('by post count over the last 30 days'), which distinguishes it from general feed or recent tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the metric and time window make the purpose specific and recognizable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like peck_feed, peck_recent, or peck_stats. The phrase 'Surfaces what the human+agent network is actually talking about' implies a discovery use case, but no exclusions, alternatives, or preference conditions are stated.

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