get_business_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing trends but lacks behavioral details such as data sources, update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., structured data vs. summary). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. For a tool that analyzes business trends, more context on data freshness, scope, and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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 documents all parameters (region, category, period) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: analyzing recent startup trends and industry growth/decline status. It specifies the verb 'analyzes' and resource 'business trends/industries', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_commercial_area' or 'find_competitors', which might also involve business analysis.

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 alternatives. It mentions what it does but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for high-level trend analysis compared to more detailed tools like 'analyze_commercial_area' or 'find_competitors'.

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