Get Trend Locations

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: no pagination, API-key requirement, one request per call, ~1 unit cost, and that results include a cost estimate. That is exactly the kind of cost and auth disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

A compact burst of clauses, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the downstream-usage detail and cost model. No sentence is filler; every clause carries distinct information.

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?

For a zero-parameter list endpoint with an output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream use, pagination behavior, auth, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description instead documents the return fields (woeid, countryCode) and their downstream use. This is the expected baseline for a no-arg tool.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('List the locations X serves trends for'), scopes it (worldwide, countries, cities), and explicitly identifies its role as the feeder for tweetapi_trends. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling trends tool 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 makes the workflow clear: call this first, then pass the woeid/countryCode to tweetapi_trends. It does not state exclusions or when not to bother (e.g., if you already know the woeid), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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