get_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns what's currently popular on TMDB based on user activity,' which adds some context about the data source and criteria. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior (beyond the 'page' parameter in the schema). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return behavior. There is no unnecessary information, and each sentence serves a clear purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage guidance more explicitly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and data source but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, which it does not. This results in a minimal viable level of completeness.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters (media_type, time_window, page). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already covers. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description does not need to compensate.

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's purpose: 'Get daily or weekly trending movies, TV shows, or people.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trending movies, TV shows, or people'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'discover_movies' or 'search_movies' beyond mentioning it's based on 'what's currently popular on TMDB based on user activity.' This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'daily or weekly' and 'currently popular on TMDB based on user activity,' which implies context, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_movies' or 'search_movies.' No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternative recommendations are included, leaving gaps in guidance.

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