get_twitter_place_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid WOEIDs, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides useful examples. No unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance relative to siblings. It could mention when to prefer this over get_twitter_trends or what response format to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the WOEID parameter with examples. The description adds different example WOEIDs (countries vs. city in schema), providing minor additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements but does not significantly exceed schema detail.

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 action ('Get trending topics') and the resource ('for a specific location using WOEID'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_twitter_trends (general) and search_twitter_places (place lookup) by specifying location-specific trends.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for location-specific trends) and gives common WOEID examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_twitter_trends for global trends.

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