armut_trending_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does describe the data surfaced, but says nothing about the read-only nature, data freshness, result limits, pagination, or whether the 'most-searched' section is derived or real-time.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key concept front-loaded and the return contents enumerated in parentheticals. It earns its words, though the long run-on with embedded parenthetical lists is slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted structure.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return shapes, and with zero parameters there is no input ambiguity to resolve. For a low-risk read-only trending fetch the coverage is close to sufficient; only the absence of any behavioral note (freshness, scope, no auth) keeps it short of complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully self-explanatory.

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 front-loads a specific resource and scope: 'What's popular on Armut right now', then enumerates the three things returned (service groups, trending services with pro counts/ratings/reviews, most-searched city+service combos). That clearly separates it from armut_search_services and armut_service_detail by topic, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: the 'what's popular right now' framing suggests discovery/browse scenarios rather than targeted lookups, which the agent must infer.

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