See what is trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that trends are per-instance and not network-wide, which is a key behavioral trait that affects what results to expect. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states what the tool returns and its variants; the second sentence adds crucial scope information. Every word earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the description plus the fully documented schema and safety annotations cover everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The instance-scoped nature is disclosed, and all parameters are defined in the schema. No output schema exists, but return values for trend endpoints are generally self-evident.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds some meaning for the 'kind' parameter by enumerating the three values in prose, but does not add anything about 'limit' or 'account'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns current trends on this instance, listing the three kinds (hashtags, statuses, links). It clearly distinguishes itself from network-wide trends and from sibling timeline tools by emphasizing the per-instance scope.

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 useful context about when to use this tool (when you need instance-specific trends) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. The usage guidance is implied through the scope clarification rather than directly stated.

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