list_media_trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination defaults varying, limits being clamped rather than rejected, and watchnow having specific streaming-scope semantics.

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 organized as an Args list and front-loads the purpose and endpoint. However, repeated 'Query parameter.' lines add noise, and the watchnow section is long yet necessary; overall it is reasonably structured but contains several low-value lines.

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?

A zero-argument call is adequately supported by 'Get trending media.' and the endpoint, and the output schema covers return values. However, filter-rich calls are not fully usable because most filter parameters lack formats and valid values, and there is no guidance distinguishing this from popular, anticipated, or media-type-specific siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. watchnow, page, limit, and the ignore_* flags get meaningful explanations, while genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, and certifications are dismissed as 'Query parameter.' with no value formats, syntax, or examples.

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 opens with 'Get trending media.' and specifies the endpoint GET /media/trending, so the action and resource are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings like list_media_popular or list_movies_trending/list_shows_trending, leaving the agent to infer the media-vs-movies/shows distinction from the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_media_popular, list_media_anticipated, list_movies_trending, or list_shows_trending. The description only provides parameter-level usage details like watchnow values and pagination behavior, not tool-selection criteria.

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