get_trending_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, how pagination behaves (despite offset/limit), what 'trending' means algorithmically, or the return structure. It only states that it gets trending posts, which is a basic read operation.

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 a single short sentence, which is extremely concise. However, it omits necessary details about return values, pagination, or usage context, making it under-specified rather than elegantly concise. It has minimal structure but no waste.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is a one-liner that fails to explain what the response contains, how trending is determined, or any constraints. For a list-fetching tool, it should at least mention the response shape or pagination behavior.

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 input schema provides full documentation for all three parameters (limit, offset, timeframe) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trending posts') and identifies the source ('Velog'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_posts and search_posts because 'trending' implies a global ranking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios. The distinction from search_posts or get_user_posts is only implicit in the tool name, not in the description.

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