get_top_trends

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'No keyword', default sort behavior, the rank_change/window mechanics, the fact that store boards are not keyword lookups, and how to respond when rate limits or quota are exhausted. This is exactly the kind of extra operational behavior an agent needs.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, category constraint, sort behavior, app-store nuance, sibling routing, and rate-limit handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the content organized so no sentence is redundant.

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, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use it, how to select the right feed, how sort and window interact, which siblings to route to, and how to handle quota failure. The schema handles the valid enum-like type values and output structure, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 value by clarifying parameter interplay: category is mandatory for specific types, sort has two meaningful modes, window applies only to rank_change, and store feed types are live boards rather than keyword searches. It slightly exceeds the schema's own parameter descriptions without fully re-explaining every field.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('get') with a clear resource ('live top-trending board') and adds a sharp scope constraint: exactly one feed type and no keyword. It also draws an explicit line against the sibling tools by pointing to get_growth/get_time_series for app history, so an agent can distinguish this from the alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use category for certain feed types, use sort='rank_change' for climbers, and use get_growth or get_time_series for app history instead of this tool. It even says 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards,' which gives a clear exclusion. The rate-limit/quota instruction also tells the agent what to do in a failure case.

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