trends_digest

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: it calls sources in parallel, handles partial failures gracefully, and gives strict presentation rules for the output. This helps the agent understand side effects and output structure.

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 front-loaded with the core action, but the presentation rules are verbose and could be shortened or moved to an output schema. Nonetheless, they are well-structured and clear.

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?

While the description gives a good overview of the tool's behavior (parallel calls, partial failures) and output formatting, it lacks parameter explanations and usage context. With an output schema present, some omission is acceptable, but the lack of param guidance reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description wholly fails to explain any of the four parameters (topic, sources, per_source_limit, days). The agent must rely on parameter names alone, and no guidance on format, allowed values, or behavior is provided.

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 it is a 'One-shot multi-source digest for a topic.' It explicitly mentions calling multiple sources in parallel and partial failure tolerance, which distinguishes it from sibling single-source search tools like arxiv_search or pubmed_search.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a brief summary (trends_briefing) or a targeted search is more appropriate. No 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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