spraay_research_papers_trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the cost per call and instructing to pass fields as typed arguments, providing operational context beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, cost, safety, and usage. No redundant or superfluous text.

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 the annotations and output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers main purpose, cost, read-only nature, and parameter passing. It omits details on result format or pagination, but these are likely in the output schema. Adequately complete for a read-only tool.

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% but the property descriptions are minimal ('days parameter'). The tool description does not add meaning to parameters, e.g., expected format for 'days' or valid values for 'topic'. Baseline 3 applies due to coverage, but no extra value.

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 retrieves trending papers by topic over a specified number of days, distinguishing it from sibling research paper tools like spraay_research_papers_search or by_author.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature but does not explicitly guide when to use trending over other paper tools or provide exclusion criteria. Implicit guidance is present via the mention of cost, but lacks explicit context for alternatives.

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