top_performers

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals a non-obvious limitation: content from creators excluded by SideShift's /creators can only be shown/hidden, not enriched. This adds meaningful context beyond a simple read operation, though it omits other aspects like auth or rate limits.

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 in a single sentence, then provides a necessary but slightly verbose explanation of the 'include_unlisted' parameter. The structure is logical and efficient, though the second part could be tightened without losing essential information.

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 covers the core behavior and the most intricate parameter, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it does not explicitly state sorting order or date range semantics, and lacks usage context relative to siblings. Given the tool's complexity, this is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It explicitly lists the options for the 'metric' parameter and explains the 'include_unlisted' parameter in detail, including its data-source implications. Other parameters like 'n' and date ranges are self-explanatory from their names and defaults, so the description adds substantial 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 'Ranked content items by a chosen metric' and enumerates all supported metrics (views/likes/comments/shares/saves/conversions/revenue/engagement_rate). This specifies the verb (rank), resource (content items), and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_performance_summary or detect_trending_formats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_performance_summary or detect_trending_formats. The description focuses solely on functionality and parameter details, without specifying use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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