Get Trending Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'No authentication required' (which isn't covered by annotations) and describes the return structure in detail. This provides behavioral transparency about authentication needs and output format.

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 highly concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose and authentication requirement, followed by a clear return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, authentication, and return values in detail. The annotations handle behavioral traits like read-only and idempotency, while the description adds necessary context about authentication and output structure, making it fully adequate for this tool.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'trending content on AgentHive', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like hive_get_feed or hive_get_global_feed by focusing on trending content rather than personalized or chronological feeds. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., hive_search might also retrieve content).

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 implies usage when trending content is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hive_get_feed or hive_search. It mentions 'No authentication required', which provides some context about prerequisites, but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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