get_top_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by engagement score and paginated, which are key behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, usage, returns, example), front-loaded key information, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear functionality.

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 tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns TopicSummary objects'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, usage contexts, return format, and provides examples, addressing all necessary aspects without needing to explain return values in detail.

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%, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing enum values for 'period' and explaining pagination, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('top-performing topics'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_hot_topics' or 'get_new_topics' by focusing on performance ranking over time periods rather than recency or popularity alone.

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 'Use this to' section provides clear contexts for when to use the tool (e.g., finding valuable discussions, researching historical threads, identifying evergreen content), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like 'get_hot_topics' for current trends.

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