scout_trends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns (sentiment score, trending direction, etc.), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, accuracy limitations, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second specifies the return values. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more integrated with the first for better flow.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The description covers the basic purpose and output types adequately for a tool with good schema coverage. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidance relative to siblings prevents a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (topic and timeframe). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('track trends and sentiment') and identifies the resource ('on any topic'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by focusing on general topic analysis rather than specific entity types like companies or products. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools by name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the six sibling tools (scout_batch, scout_company, etc.). It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description without explicit comparison to related tools.

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