List missing topics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are limited to nonexistent searched topics and that they are ranked by demand, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose output shape or pagination behavior, but this is a simple read-only list operation, so the missing detail is minor.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines what the tool returns and the ordering, and the second sentence explains why it matters. Every word 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the result set, the ranking, and the intended use. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what fields the returned topics include or how demand is quantified, but this is unlikely to prevent correct invocations.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description ('How many to return'), defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description together state a specific action on a specific resource: listing topics that people searched for but that don't exist yet. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_topics, discover_topics, and create_topic, since it is specifically about missing topics ranked by demand.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is 'the highest-leverage queue for deciding what to write next.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other sibling tools, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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