벨로그 트렌딩

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details—such as pagination behavior, sorting logic, or return format—beyond the parameter hint, providing minimal value beyond the 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 extremely concise, with no filler content, and front-loads the main purpose. However, it lacks a structured explanation and is so terse that it sacrifices informative content, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how trending is determined. It only says 'popular posts' and mentions choosing a period, leaving ambiguity about the response structure, pagination, and distinctions from recent or list tools. The description is incomplete for a tool with three optional parameters and no output schema.

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 only hints at the timeframe parameter ('기간을 골라 본다') but says nothing about limit or offset, which are important for pagination. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema-level 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 '벨로그 인기 글. 기간을 골라 본다' clearly identifies the resource (popular posts) and the action (view with a period filter). It is specific enough to convey core functionality, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like velog_recent_posts or velog_list_posts, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competing tools such as velog_search_posts or velog_recent_posts, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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