get_top_trends

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: exact one-feed-type constraint, no-keyword behavior, category-handling nuances, sort/window behavior, and a specific instruction for rate-limit/quota failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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: core purpose, category rules, sort behavior, sibling routing, and rate-limit handling. The most important scoping constraint is front-loaded, and the longer guidance is grouped logically.

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 a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description needs to cover only selection and edge-case behavior. It does so thoroughly, including alternatives, category prerequisites, window semantics, and quota handling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description does reinforce the category requirement and sort semantics, but it mostly restates what the schema already says rather than adding significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-scope statement: 'Live top-trending board for exactly one feed type. No keyword.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling history tools by stating it is for live boards and directing app-history needs to get_growth or get_time_series.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: pass category for certain feed types, use sort='rank_change' for climbers, and 'Do not use get_time_series for live boards.' It also names the sibling alternatives for app history, making selection unambiguous.

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