All Trending This Week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination (despite the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'trending' means (e.g., based on views, ratings). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 and front-loaded: 'Get all trending of the week (movies, TV, people)'. It's a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer these aspects, making the description incomplete for optimal use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter documented as 'Page number (1-1000)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 week (movies, TV, people)'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trending of the week'), and scope ('movies, TV, people'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'trending_all_day' or 'trending_movie_week', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'trending_all_day' for daily trends or 'trending_movie_week' for movie-specific weekly trends, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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