get_top_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond those: it clarifies the tool is not a keyword lookup, distinguishes live store boards from keyword-style queries, and discloses rate-limit/quota handling ('tell the user their plan limit is reached'). 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 a dense paragraph with no filler — purpose, category rule, sort/window behavior, sibling routing, and quota handling each carry real signal. It is on the longer side and could be broken into clearer segments, but every sentence earns its place.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description's remaining job is selection and invocation context, which it covers thoroughly: which feeds are live boards, which types require category, how sort and window interact, and where to route non-live-board queries. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not re-document parameters. It does reinforce key semantics — 'always pass category' for four types and the 'only omit on a first pull to learn official names' nuance — but most of its parameter mentions (window values, sort modes) mirror what the schema already states.

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 and resource — 'Live top-trending board for exactly one feed type' — and immediately adds a discriminative constraint ('No keyword') that separates it from keyword-search tools. It also names sibling tools and explicitly routes app-history queries to get_growth or get_time_series, making differentiation unambiguous without opening any 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: always pass category for four named types, and use sort='rank_change' with a valid window for climbers. It also states clear exclusions ('Do not use get_time_series for live boards'), names the alternatives for app history, and tells the agent how to behave when rate limits or quota are hit.

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