Trending skills

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds the non-obvious caveat that counts come from a 24-per-page sample of newest projects rather than the whole site – a real limitation an agent must know before trusting the numbers. It does not say anything about ordering or output shape, but no output schema exists and the sampling warning is the main behavioral risk.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then adds the sampling caveat and the follow-up hint. Every sentence carries information; only the odd mid-description line break slightly hurts readability.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, the demand-snapshot interpretation, the sample-size caveat, and the suggested next call. The only gap is that it does not characterize the returned ranking (e.g., skills with frequency counts), which an agent must infer.

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%, so 'top', 'pages', and 'category_id' are already documented in the schema, including the page size of 24. The description's mention of '24 per page' reinforces the 'pages' parameter's effect but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('show which skills employers ask for most') and scopes it to the newest projects. It is distinguishable from kl_skills (a plain skill list) by the demand/trend framing, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('see what is in demand right now') and a useful downstream workflow: pass a returned skill id to kl_projects or kl_market_rate. It does not say when to prefer kl_skills over this tool, so the alternative selection is only implied.

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