Get trending AI topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output fields (mention count, percent change, direction, sparkline) and the ranking timeframe, offering transparency about what the tool returns. It does not mention read-only guarantees explicitly, but 'Lists' implies a non-mutating operation, and no destructive behavior is suggested.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and ranking, the second lists the output fields. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and contains no filler.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, this description provides sufficient context: it specifies the source, the ranking period, and the exact fields returned. The lack of pagination details is acceptable given the simplicity, and no critical information appears missing.

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 already provides a complete description for the 'tag' parameter (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies, as the parameter is well-documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists', identifies the resource 'AI trends tracked by cantkeepupwithai.com', and specifies ranking criteria. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trend_detail or get_daily_digest.

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?

While the description implies this tool is for viewing the overall trending list, it does not explicitly mention when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or mention get_trend_detail for deeper dives.

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