trend_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'Get time-bucketed trend data' adds minimal behavioral context. No details on response format, pagination, or data volume are given.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, though it could be slightly expanded to mention output structure without losing efficiency.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool’s purpose but lacks details on return format and potential limitations. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an AI agent.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or format expectations, so baseline 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 description clearly specifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'time-bucketed trend data' for a table. It also mentions the use case for monthly/weekly trend charts, distinguishing it from other query tools like 'query_records' or 'run_aggregate_query'.

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 for trend charts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'query_records' or 'nlq_query'. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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