get_top_trends

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, the description adds important behavioral context: rate limits and monthly quota handling, default sort behavior, rank-change snapshot windows, category omission behavior, and feed-type quirks. It discloses how the tool behaves in edge cases, which is exactly the kind of transparency that helps an agent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, category rule, sort semantics, alternative tool routing, and rate-limit behavior are all covered in a compact, front-loaded format. No filler 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 six parameters, sibling tools, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: valid feed types, category requirements, sort/window semantics, pagination defaults handled in schema, alternatives, and rate-limit response. Nothing essential 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. The description adds valuable non-obvious semantics: category is mandatory for four specific feed types and mixing occurs otherwise, and sort='rank_change' compares against a prior snapshot. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a live top-trending board for exactly one feed type, and explicitly says 'No keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_growth and get_time_series without needing to open the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: pass category for certain feeds, use sort='rank_change' for climbers, and use get_growth or get_time_series for app history. It even warns 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards,' giving clear exclusions and alternatives.

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