get_top_trends

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses the live board nature, that these are not keyword lookups, default sort behavior, and the rate-limit/quota response instruction telling the user their plan limit is reached. It also clarifies the live-vs-history distinction. No contradictions.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance—category, sort, alternatives, rate-limit handling—without filler.

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 is fully covered: purpose, category requirements, sort/window semantics, alternatives, and error handling are all present. An output schema exists, so return values don't need describing. Minor schema details like 'Only omit on a first pull' are already captured in the input schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats sort/category guidance already present in the schema, such as 'Use sort='rank_change'' and 'always pass category,' without adding new parameter-specific meaning. The extra context like 'No keyword' and 'live store boards' is about tool behavior, not parameter semantics.

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 states the tool provides a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type and explicitly notes 'No keyword.' It distinguishes itself by pointing to get_growth/get_time_series for app history, so an agent can tell when to use this tool. The purpose is specific and resource-focused.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use get_growth or get_time_series for an app's history, and 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards.' It also spells out when category must be passed for specific feed types. This is far beyond a vague statement of scope.

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