recurring_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the data source (local archive), the deduplication rule (overlapping or restarting runs within 7 days, under any seed, count once), the `action` side effect (a durable page refreshed at each spike), and the fallback note (coverage_days when the archive is younger than the window). It also signals cost/safety via 'Free: makes no network requests', though it never states read-only status in annotation terms.

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 core scope is front-loaded, which is good, but the text is a single dense run-on packed with nested parentheses and semicolons, making the deduplication rule and the parameter notes harder to parse than necessary. Information is mostly valuable, yet the structure works against quick scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the deduplication and archive-coverage caveats cover the trickiest behavior. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving `geo` and `limit` undefined and providing no routing guidance among 18 siblings leaves real gaps an agent must guess around.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it adds valid ranges and defaults for `days` (1-365), `min_episodes` (2-10, default 3), and `seeds` (optional, up to 5). The `geo` and `limit` parameters receive no explanation at all, leaving two of five undocumented in both schema and 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 names a specific resource — topics that broke out repeatedly within a local archive over the last `days` — and specifies what each result carries (episodes, first/last breakout, seeds, action). It is clearly distinguishable in concept from siblings like trending_now or trend_history, though it never names an alternative to sharpen that boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for finding recurring breakout topics rather than one-off spikes, and it learns constraints (`days` 1-365, `min_episodes` 2-10 default 3, `seeds` up to 5). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over discover_topics, trend_history, or seasonality, and no exclusion conditions.

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