Trend insights for a topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the cost implications of the two tiers, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second adds critical usage context (tier pricing and outputs). Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains the two tiers, their cost, and what each returns. There's no output schema, but the description effectively communicates the return structure ('basic score' vs 'full breakdown including related trends'), making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 both parameters have descriptions in the schema (topic and tier with enum). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the tier pricing ('$0.001' vs '$0.005') but doesn't add format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 tool returns 'Trend score, momentum, and related trends for a topic', which is a specific verb ('get') and resource ('trend insights'). It also distinguishes between two tiers (standard vs premium) and what each returns, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_crypto_trending (which likely focuses on crypto) and general search tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use each tier ('standard returns a basic score, premium returns full breakdown'), providing clear cost-benefit context. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., web_search for broader trend exploration), though the siblings list makes some alternatives apparent.

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