cfpb_complaint_trends

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true aligns with the description's purpose (reading trends), and the description adds context about endpoints and required parameters. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like data range limits, pagination, or response format, which would add value beyond annotations.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then endpoint, required parameter, and lens/sub-lens options. No wasted words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects but lacks details on return format (e.g., time series structure) and does not differentiate from similar tools like cfpb_complaint_aggregations. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description explains lens options and sub-lens drill-down, adding context to the enum-based parameters. However, the schema already describes each parameter, so the description provides moderate added value.

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 the resource 'complaint trends', specifies the dedicated '/trends' endpoint and lens-based aggregation. It lists lens options and mentions sub-lens drilling, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cfpb_complaint_aggregations that likely aggregate data differently.

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 emphasizes the required parameter trend_interval and lists lens options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cfpb_complaint_aggregations or cfpb_search_complaints. Usage context is implied but not formally differentiated.

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