get_top_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: category omission mixes every board, 'rank_change' compares against a prior snapshot with configurable windows, live store boards are not keyword lookups, and rate-limited/quota-exhausted requests should be reported as plan-limit reached. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 opens with the core purpose, then packs category rules, sort semantics, sibling routing, and rate-limit handling into one dense paragraph. Every sentence contributes, but the lack of visual structure makes it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to describe return values. It covers feed-type selection, category requirements, sort/window behavior, and sibling alternatives, plus edge-case handling for rate limits. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for type, sort, limit, offset, window, and category. The description adds value on top: it ties category to four specific types, warns that omitting it mixes boards, and clarifies that window only applies to rank_change and has daily/weekly/monthly nuances. That exceeds the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States the tool is a 'Live top-trending board for exactly one feed type' and immediately distinguishes it from keyword lookups ('No keyword'). It also names the specific feed types and points to siblings for app history, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. The verb is implicit but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'For an app's history use get_growth or get_time_series...' and 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards,' naming the exact sibling tools and the condition that selects them. It also gives a hard rule for category feeds ('always pass category') and explains the exception for learning official names. This is clear when-to-use guidance.

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