get_top_trends

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it warns about category omission causing mixed boards, clarifies that some feeds are live store boards rather than keyword lookups, and instructs the agent to inform the user when rate limits or quota are reached. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, with every sentence serving a purpose. It packs critical usage rules, alternatives, and rate-limit behavior into a short paragraph without fluff or repetition.

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 rich schema and output schema, the description covers the key decision points: which feed types require category, how sorting works, when to use sibling tools, and how to handle quota/rate-limit errors. Nothing important for correctly selecting and invoking this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra context around the type and sort parameters by explaining live store boards and app-history alternatives. It also reinforces the category requirement and rank_change window options. Some content duplicates the schema, so the added value is modest but real.

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 identifies the tool as a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type, which is specific and actionable. It also distinguishes the tool from keyword lookups and from history-style tools like get_growth and get_time_series. The category requirement for certain feed types further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: use get_growth or get_time_series for app history, and do not use get_time_series for live boards. It also gives concrete category-passing rules for specific feed types and explains the sort behavior with rank_change and windows. This is strong, explicit routing guidance.

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