Search trends

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the return structure (category, sample product per trend), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about how many items come back or how the limit behaves.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, and the defining scope ('right now') is stated early. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape adequately and annotations cover safety. It is still missing any note on result volume defaults or ordering ('trending' order), which an agent might reasonably need.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but its type, default of 10 and 1-30 bounds are fully expressed in the schema, so its meaning is unambiguous without prose. The description adds nothing about the limit, which is the only real gap.

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 names the resource precisely ('what people search on Torob right now') and discloses the payload shape (category plus one sample product), which sets it apart from siblings like tb_search and tb_suggest. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

'Right now' weakly implies a recency-based, non-query use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as tb_suggest or tb_search despite many closely related siblings.

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