download_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output format ('daily breakdown + sparkline') but omits critical behavioral details: rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or pagination. For a data-fetching tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., performance, errors) and doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and period with default and options). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the output relates to these inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'download trends for an npm package', specifying the output format 'daily breakdown + sparkline'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'downloads' (likely aggregate) and 'compare_downloads' (comparative), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage for trend analysis with daily granularity and visual sparkline, suggesting it's for detailed historical data vs. siblings like 'downloads' (possibly total counts) or 'package_info' (general metadata). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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