Best-of list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked and topic-scoped, but says nothing about result size, the limit parameter's effect, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact example list; every clause earns its place. The example enumeration is slightly long but directly aids parameter formatting.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to scope it, but omits the limit semantics and any sense of result ordering/size, which an agent needs to call it optimally.

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 coverage is 50%; topic carries its own description and the description's examples reinforce the slug format and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The limit parameter (1-50) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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?

States the resource precisely ('a ranked best-of list by topic') and grounds it with concrete topic examples, so an agent knows it returns a curated ranking, not raw search matches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'trending', which is the nearest overlapping concept.

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?

'Omit topic to list all topics' gives a usable condition for the parameter, but there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over search_tools or trending. Usage is implied by the topic examples rather than stated.

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