See what is trending

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive profile. The description adds useful context about needing no credentials and returning a feed link with each topic, but it does not address response shape, pagination, or the apparent tension between 'works without credentials' and the account parameter referencing connected accounts. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds two valuable details: the feed link and credential-free operation. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning feed links per topic, but it does not describe the full response structure. The 'works without credentials' statement also conflicts with the account parameter's default-to-connected-account semantics, leaving ambiguity. Overall, the description captures the essentials but is not fully complete for unassisted invocation.

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%, with each of the three parameters (limit, account, include_suggested) having a meaningful description. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve parameter understanding. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns current trending topics on Bluesky, which is distinct from sibling tools like get_feed or search_posts. It also clarifies that each topic includes the feed link to the underlying posts, making the tool's purpose and output content immediately clear.

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 implies it is for viewing public trending data and notes that it works without credentials, which signals a low-barrier read tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_posts or get_feed, and it offers no exclusion criteria. Usage context is clear but not fully specified.

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