analyze_topic_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the tool analyzes trends and returns grouped works, which is transparent for the basic operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, resource consumption, or response limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output (works grouped by year) adequately but lacks details on pagination, response structure, or edge cases. Given the absence of annotations, it is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

All 5 parameters have 100% schema coverage with detailed descriptions, especially for 'exact_phrase' and 'search_field'. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'analyze' and the resource 'publication trends over time' with a specific output 'returns works grouped by year'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_trending_topics' (current trends) and 'analyze_geographic_distribution' (geographic focus).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there are no usage conditions or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer from context.

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