Search trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is low. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing freshness ('right now') and the per-entry return shape (category and a sample product), which the annotations never convey.

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 short sentences, lead sentence states the payload, second states usage and follow-up. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, return fields, and the chaining pattern. It could note ordering/stability of the trend list, but nothing essential for correct invocation is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented with default and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about limit semantics (e.g. ordering or what happens at max 30).

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?

Names the resource (search trends on Torob) and the payload shape (category + one sample product), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tb_suggest, which plausibly also surfaces queries, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit trigger ('what is trending') and a concrete workflow ('to pick a query'), plus the chaining target tb_search(query=...). No when-not-to-use guidance versus tb_suggest or tb_search itself.

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