All Trending Today

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (retrieves trending content) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (despite having a 'page' parameter). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'all trending' (scope), 'of the day' (timeframe), and '(movies, TV, people)' (categories). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 (retrieving trending content with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses important context about behavior, output format, and usage constraints. For a tool that presumably returns data lists, the lack of output information is a notable gap, though the single parameter is well-documented in the schema.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'page' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type and range constraints), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add value beyond what the schema already provides, but doesn't need to compensate for poor schema coverage either.

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: 'Get all trending of the day (movies, TV, people)' - this specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trending'), and scope ('all', 'of the day', categories). It distinguishes from siblings like 'trending_all_week' by specifying 'day' timeframe, but doesn't fully differentiate from 'trending_movie_day' or 'trending_tv_day' regarding the 'all' vs category-specific distinction.

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 implies usage context through 'of the day' and 'all' (vs category-specific), suggesting this is for daily trending across all media types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'trending_all_week' (timeframe choice) or 'trending_movie_day' (category-specific vs comprehensive). No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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