Get trend detail

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 discloses the tool is a read operation ('Fetches') and describes the response contents, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid id), rate limits, or any side effects. It adds useful detail about what is returned but omits potential failure modes.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the detailed contents. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value's key facets (summary, importance, history, sources) and links to the list tool via the schema. It lacks explicit error handling or response shape, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'The trend's id, as returned by get_trending_topics.' The tool description merely restates 'by its id' without adding extra semantic nuance, so the schema carries the parameter meaning fully.

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 fetches full detail for a single AI trend by id, and enumerates the content: summary, why it matters, mention history, and source references. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trending_topics (which lists trends) by focusing on a single entity's detail.

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 schema parameter description explicitly notes the id is 'as returned by get_trending_topics', giving clear context that this tool is used after listing trends. It implies the alternative for fetching the list is get_trending_topics, though it does not explicitly state 'use this only when you have a specific trend id' or list exclusions.

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